Quantcast
Channel: Crimewave
Viewing all 1110 articles
Browse latest View live

POLICE HUNT CAR AFTER STABBING

$
0
0

Saturday August 24 2013

- Police investigating the stabbing of a senior sergeant want to speak to anyone who saw a Holden Commodore sedan in the area before the violent attack.
Detectives said they wanted any information about the car with registration number XNL-560, driving north on Geelong Road before 9pm on Wednesday.
“It is believed the silver vehicle took the Ballarat Road exit and drove west along the Midland Highway,” Victoria Police spokeswoman Natalie Webster said. “An incident occurred shortly before 9pm where the vehicle was in the middle of the road and facing east towards Geelong.”
Police have charged 23-year-old Grovedale man with intentionally cause serious injury after the policeman was allegedly stabbed. He faced Melbourne Magistrates Court yesterday – Herald Sun



MAN DENIES ANY ROLE IN THE DEATH OF HIS GIRLFRIEND

$
0
0

Saturday August 24 2013

- A judge’s son yesterday denied any involvement in the death of his girlfriend, whose body was found at the foot of a garbage chute in their luxury apartment block.
Asked directly at an inquest whether he had any involvement in the death of Phoebe Handsjuk, Antony Hampel said: “Absolutely not.”
Mr Hampel, the son of former Supreme Court judge George Hampel and stepson of County Court judge Felicity Hampel, also denied having any information to suggest anyone else was involved.
Ms Handsjuk, 24, was found dead at the Balencea apartment complex in St. Kilda Road, where they shared a flat, on December 2nd, 2010.
Police found she had committed suicide by throwing herself 12 storeys down the garbage chute – a finding her family has never accepted.
Mr Hampel told the inquest that on coming home that evening and finding a small amount of blood on a computer, he thought he might be able to find something on it to explain her disappearance.
The court heard that after about 15 minutes on his computer he had a cigarette, a beer and ordered takeaway.
He said he had last seen Ms Handsjuk alive that morning, asleep, as he left for work.
He told the court they never spoke again. He could not explain phone records appearing to show calls between their mobile phones that day.
And witness accounts that he had acted normally afterward, and had seemed emotional only when around her family, were “ridiculous”.
“I was in a state of grief and shock,” he said.
He said Ms Handsjuk would borrow money from him, had a drinking problem, and was depressed. He denied ever physically or verbally abusing her and said he’d long worried she might take her own life.
He said he believed he had left her phone for repair in Abbotsford. But the court heard heard he told police on the night that it was in the flat.
Ms Handsjuk’s grandfather Lorne Campbell, a former senior detective with 34 years’ experience, earlier told the inquest a smear of blood found in the flat and bruising on her wrists indicated murder.
The inquest, before Coroner Peter White, continues – Padraic Murphy


BOOZE RAID ON BIKIE CLUBHOUSE

$
0
0

Saturday August 24 2013

- Police raided a Hells Angels clubhouse after the outlaw motorcycle gang advertised a party for tonight.
Detectives from Taskforce Echo and the Public Order Response Team raided the fortified bikie venue in Alphington at 2pm yesterday.
The search warrant was for alleged liquor licensing breaches.
“Anyone who plans on holding an event where liquor is for sale needs to abide by the relevant laws and apply for the appropriate licence,” Detective Inspector Campbell said.
“They also need to engage with local police and this wasn’t done on this occasion.
“We expect our sporting clubs and other community organisations to do this, so there is no reason why OMCGs should consider themselves above the law.
“Police make no apologies for targeting and disrupting the activities of those who disobey laws within Victoria.”
Police were seen removing alcohol from the clubhouse on Heidelberg Roac. It is understood Hells Angels members permitted police to enter the venue and no one was taken into custody.
Taskforce Echo was set up by Victoria Police in 2011 to target bikie gangs.
“The role of Taskforce Echo includes proactive targeted disruption of criminal activity as well as ongoing investigation of major crimes such as drug trafficking, illegal firearms, serious assaults and licensed premises,” Detective Inspector Campbell said – Jon Kaila


MOKBEL BLAMED FOR MURDER

$
0
0

Saturday August 24 2013

- An ex-cop suspected of organising the murders of police informer Terry Hodson and wife Christine has blamed drug boss Tony Mokbel in a new book.
Former drug squad detective Paul Dale says in Disgraced: The Cop At The Centre Of Melbourne’s Gangland Wars that the crime could have been revenge for Hodson’s role in a rip-off linked to Mokbel.
A house in East Oakleigh was burgled of hundreds of thousands of dollars in drugs on Grand Final day, 2003.
Hodson and Mr Dale’s former drug squad colleague, David Miechel, were charged after being caught red-handed at the scene. Miechel is serving 12 years in jail.
Hodson, 56, who’d agreed to give evidence that Mr Dale was involved, was shot dead with wife Christine at their Kew East home in May 2004.
Mr Dale was charged with having arranged for hitman Rodney Charles Collins – now serving life for a similar double murder – to murder Hodson. Charges against both were later dropped.
Mr Dale writes: “If Big Tony was upset about Terry Hodson robbing the drug house and – if the rumours were true – doing him out of a lot of money, he only needed to have a chat to his father-in-law (Collins) for advice.”
Mr Dale refers to a meeting between Mokbel, gang boss Carl Williams and Collins.
“Without any help from me, any or all of these men easily had motive to kill Terry.”
The book also claims Hodson was involved in a plot to kill Williams, who found out about it, and that police “green-lit” Hodson to keep selling drugs as long as he was informing.
“I didn’t have anything to do with murdering the Hodsons,” Dale told the Herald Sun, saying police failed to look at about 150 suspects.
He said Williams was secretly recorded talking of how Lewis Moran and Hodson had put a contract on him. “Within weeks (they) had been gunned down.
“Williams was convicted of killing Moran and admitted organising a hitman to kill Hodson. All he had to do was invent a story that I orchestrated (it and) he’d get full indemnity and close to two million bucks,” Mr Dale said – Mark Buttler & Keith Moor


COURT HEARS OF NIKOLIC POLICE INTERVIEW CLASH

$
0
0

Saturday August 24 2013

- The police officer allegedly assaulted by champion jockey Danny Nikolic was a homicide detective probing Nikolic as a “person of interest” in the murder of his father-in-law, racehorse owner Les Samba, a court has heard.
After being interviewed about an assault on fellow jockey Mark Pegus and a later assault on Pegus’s girlfriend, Ricki-Lee Hull, in 2011, 38-year-old Daniel Mario Nikolic allegedly aggressively pointed at a police officer and dared him to punch him.
Melbourne Magistrates Court heard Nikolic accused Detective Senior Constable Julio Salerno of “having a go” at him and faced off with the officer, foreheads touching, before he was shoved back into his chair.
The interviewing officer, Sergeant David Eadie, denied that Detective Salerno, a member of the Purana Taskforce that investigated gangland killings and the unsolved murder of Mr Samba, had been sent in to “wind Danny up”. Nikolic was one of a number of racing identities questioned after the February 2011 murder of the well-known racehorse owner.
Sergeant Eadie said the detective was present at the April 2011 interview as a collaborator at the behest of the Purana Taskforce.
“When he is a person of interest, it is relevant and reasonable for someone to come down,” Sergeant Eadie said.
“I, as a sergeant, didn’t take it any further as to the tactics or the reasons.”
The sergeant said he and Nikolic had a good rapport and remained in the St Kilda police station interview room and had a chat after the alleged assault.
Sergeant Eadie said Detective Salerno’s assertion to Nikolic that footage from the night of the assault on Ms Hull at the Barkly Hotel in St Kilda clearly showed he was present was not inappropriate. Detective Salerno allegedly said: “I know it’s you, but at the end of the day it’s not for us to decide.”
Nikolic pleaded not guilty to all three assault assaults.
Nikolic allegedly punched jockey Pegus around six times in the head at Caulfield racecourse in January 2011 as he believed his long-time friend had been bad-mouthing Nikolic’s brother.
He faces charges of recklessly causing injury, intentionally causing injury and unlawful assault over the alleged incident involving Pegus, and assault of the police officer.
The contested hearing, dealing with only two of the three assault matters, continues next week.
A prosecution witness for the allegations concerning Ms Hull could not be located, so that matter is adjourned.
Nikolic is serving a one-year ban to be followed by a one-year suspension for threatening chief steward Terry Bailey and his family – Emily Portelli


MALE ARRESTED AFTER STABBING POLICE OFFICER

$
0
0

Saturday August 24 2013

- The man accused of stabbing a high-ranking policeman near Geelong has a history of psychosis and should be psychiatrically assessed as soon as possible, a court has heard.
Damien Power appeared at Melbourne Magistrates Court yesterday charged with three offences.
It is alleged he stabbed Senior Sergeant David Reither a number of times in the back.
According to police, Senior Sergeant Reither saw a man and woman arguing in a car on Midland Highway at Batesford and intervened about 9pm on Wednesday.
It is alleged Mr Power, 23, stabbed the senior sergeant before fleeing into paddocks where he was arrested about four hours later.
Senior Sergeant Reither was flown to The Alfred Hospital in a serious condition.
His condition was reported as stable.
Senior Sergeant Reither was in his first week of work at the Ballarat police station after transferring from Geelong. He’d spent many years as a detective in Geelong’s Criminal Investigation Unit.
Mr Power, of Grovedale, is charged with causing serious injury.
Magistrate Kay Robertson was told he was deemed unfit to be interviewed after his arrest and was transported to Melbourne.
The case would return to Geelong Magistrates Court for Mr Power’s next appearance, the court was told.
Legal Aid solicitor Sarah Westwood told the court that Mr Power had several custody management issues including a history of recent psychosis.
It was his first time in custody and he posed a significant risk of self-harm, she said. Mr Power made no application for bail – Paul Anderson


SEX CRIMES: POLICE RESPONSE & INVESTIGATION

$
0
0

**Note** The following information applies specifically to United States procedure, however the majority of the text is applicable to most law-enforcement procedure in most developed nations around the globe.

No other crime is handled more poorly by the criminal justice system than rape. And not surprisingly, no other serious crime is more under-reported. The vast majority of rape victims, in fact, never do report to police. And of those cases that are reported, the prosecution rate is lower than for any other serious crime. In no other crime is your skillful advocacy more needed, and in no other crime are your advocacy skills more challenged.

The good news is that rapid changes, as uneven as they’ve been, are beginning to bring protection and justice within the reach of many rape victims. Victims themselves are much more able to find support and to speak out. Law enforcement sex crimes investigation techniques and training have improved. And here and there throughout the system there are individuals and units who take sex crimes seriously. Still, successfully advocating for rape victims requires a full awareness of the generally hostile dynamics that rape victims face and requires your unflinching willingness to confront them.

As a crime, rape is in a class by itself; in the experience of the crime, in people’s response to the victim, and in the law enforcement skills needed to investigate and prosecute the crime.

** No other crime ignites such a firestorm of sexist hostility against the victim. Even group discussions of rape in the abstract generally end in high voltage charges against girls’ behaviors, not boys’. And discussions of rape prevention still tend to revolve around how girls should restrict their behaviors, while virtually ignoring what should be the obvious fact that preventing rape requires that it’s boy’s behavior that must change. As such, our social environments are charged against rape victims before they even come forward. And when a rape victim does come forward, the accused male will usually has no trouble at all galvanizing that generalized hostility into a crushing attack on the victim.

Unlike victims of any other crime, rape victims are often subject to concerted ostracizing, disbelief, and blame. Hostilities against the victim quickly gather steam. These hostilities are frequently bolstered by powerful (male dominated) institutions such as schools, churches, businesses, families, and authorities. It’s not at all unusual for the rapists to be actively protected by these institutions, while the victims are easily sacrificed and aggressively swept off the stage.

** No other crime so thoroughly splits the human race in two. On one side, 98% of rape perpetrators are male. On the other side, 94% of rape victims are women and children. As such, when looked at squarely, no other crime more clearly exposes the violent nature of male oppression of females. At least with domestic violence, the sexism that drives the crime can be camouflaged with a simple shift to gender neutral discussion of violence in general. But rape cannot so easily be folded into any other human experience.

When a rape victim comes forward in whichever social environment, her mere existence serves to unmask men’s violent domination of females. So there is a rush to drive her and her credibility off the stage. The dynamic is particularly intense in the most common form of rape, rape perpetrated by someone known to the victim. Exposing fathers, brothers, male teachers, neighbors, co-workers, and classmates as rapists is more than our male dominated social environments will tolerate.

Rape’s raw display of sexism is a big part of the reason why so much energy is expended to keep rape and its victims hidden and off the human agenda. Even task forces and committees on violence against women quickly tend to limit their discussions to domestic violence. And the discussion of domestic violence itself rarely broaches the sexual violence that is so often a significant element of the domestic violence. The fact is rape is present in approximately a third of domestic violence cases. Moreover, rape and sexual violence is a key indicator of domestic violence lethality. Still, three years into the third millennium of civilization, and the crime of rape remains shrouded in myths, fears, and taboos, all of which one way or other serve to ostracize the victims and protect the perpetrators.

** And no other crime cries out more for justice. The outrage of rape to the victim and society goes deeper than physical violence. Rape violates and degrades the human right to self determination on the most intimate level.

Rape and its aftermath leave such deep psychic wounds on its victims that six months following a rape 50% of rape victims have lost their jobs and 50% have suffered the break-up of a primary relationship. In a study in the late 1990’s, the American Medical Association using a number of life indicators found that rape is the most costly of all crimes, both to society and the victims.

To be sure, a rape victim will need your strong advocacy in many areas of her life. But our focus here is the criminal justice system. And perhaps no other system fails her more. When you ask women why they don’t report rape, many say they don’t believe law enforcement will do anything about it. Unfortunately, to a great extent the women are right.

** Law enforcement frequently excuses their poor record on rape by themselves attacking the victim. The victims won’t cooperate, the victims were drinking, the victims have credibility problems, the victims drop out of the prosecution. Or law enforcement resorts to variations of the old dictum that ‘rape is a very easy accusation to make, but very difficult to prove’. (This centuries old dictum, by the way, was only recently removed from California’s standard jury instructions in rape cases.)

Most rapes, many officials will tell you, are a “He said, she said” situation and therefore lack the necessary evidence to proceed. Law enforcement officials level this generalization against rape even though it should be obvious that in all crimes the accused usually contradicts the victim. And while it’s true that rape often lacks the usual kind of physical evidence available in other violent crimes, what officials neglect to mention is that rape also has many investigatory advantages which other crimes lack. For example, in most rape cases there is no who-done-it. In most rape cases, the victim can easily identify the perpetrator, and, in fact, knows the perpetrator well. And that victim knowledge of the perpetrator is an enormous investigatory advantage.

Rape can be solved as easily as any other crime, and many times more easily. It’s just that the techniques required to solve rape cases are unique, and require the kind of law enforcement skills that are unfortunately the skills most ignored or devalued in the law enforcement culture.

Successful rape investigation depends not so much on forensics and physical evidence as it does on the ability of the investigator to communicate and partner effectively with the victims. It requires a comprehensive insight into the perpetrator and victim dynamics of rape. It requires a very special understanding and finesse working with severely traumatized young females, since it is females between the ages of 16 and 24 years of age who make up the overwhelming majority of rape victims.

Successful rape investigation also requires that officers have a confidence and comfort with the many languages of sex: an ability to adapt to any culture and age level on the full range of sexual and reproductive topics from anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, menstruation, ejaculation, pregnancy, STD’s, and more, and to do so in a tone that is truly empathetic to the female point of view. As you might imagine, this requirement alone keeps many even well intentioned officers from being able to handle sex crimes well.

On the face of it, given the hyper-male culture of law enforcement, and the unique and intensely female experience of rape, it’s hard to think of a worse match than law enforcement and rape victims. So many police and prosecutors don’t want to do rape cases, are ill-at-ease with these cases, ill-suited and ill-recruited to handle these cases, and insufficiently trained in rape’s unique investigatory techniques.

** One other unique characteristic of rape helps explain why so few rape cases are prosecuted. No victim is easier to make go away than a rape victim. Instead of protesting system mistreatment, most rape victims are so mortified and wounded by the additional trauma of being re-victimized by the people who are supposed to help, they retreat. One of the most maddening scenarios of a rape case is when the victim is mistreated by officials, the victim understandably retreats from the process, and the officials smugly bellow, “See, how uncooperative these rape victims are.”

Clearly, profound, top-to-bottom changes are needed in law enforcement before rape victims routinely receive the justice and protection that is their constitutional right. In the meantime, you, the rape victim’s advocate, are pivotal. Nowhere is the advocate’s role more critical than in rape cases. The simple fact is that very few rape victims will get a proper criminal justice system response without the help of a vigilant and skillful advocate at her side every step of the way.

Because of the unique course of most rape investigations we begin by outlining a typical rape case police investigation.

A Typical Rape Case
Police Investigation

The following is a procedural outline of a typical police investigation of a rape. Keep in mind that there are many legitimate variations of this procedure, depending on everything from differences in case circumstances to differences in police department structures and policies. If the handling of your client’s case is different from this outline it doesn’t necessarily mean things have gone wrong. The main reason we give this sample procedure is to highlight some of the ways that a rape investigation is distinct from the handling of other crimes, and to help you become familiar with the logic of the investigatory stages of a rape case.
Also, in the following discussions of police rape investigations, we center our focus on the investigation of acquaintance rape. We do this because acquaintance rape, (where the perpetrator is known to the victim), makes up the vast majority of all rape cases. In addition, acquaintance rapes generally require the highest level of skills and sensitivity, both from law enforcement and from advocates.

A Typical Police Sex Crime Investigation

A. The Rape Victim Calls 911 or Calls Police Directly to Report the Rape

B. The Responding Patrol Officer Takes a Brief Statement from the Victim

C. After Taking a Brief Statement from the Victim, the Responding Officer Calls and Confers with An On-call Detective to Determine What Should Happen next.

D. The Medical/forensic Rape Exam Is Carried out on the Victim

E. A Detective Carries out an In-depth Victim Interview

F. A Pretext Call Is Set up for Cases in Which the Victim Knows the Perpetrator.

G. The Detective Carries out Further Investigation

H. The Detective Interviews (Interrogates) the Perpetrator

I. The Detective Obtains an Arrest Warrant and Arrests the Perpetrator

J. The Detective Sends His or Her Completed Report to the District Attorney’s Office for Review.

K. The District Attorney Decides to Either File Charges on the Case, Reject the Case for Prosecution, or Decides to Send the Case Back to the Police for Further Investigation.

A. The Rape Victim Calls 911 or Calls Police Directly to Report the Rape.

Most rape victims don’t report to police immediately following the rape. It’s very common for rape victims to wait days, weeks, or even months before telling anyone. And usually the first person the victim tells is a friend or a counselor at a rape crisis center and not the police. Rape victims have a very difficult time making the decision to report to police.

When rape victims do come to you before having gone to police, take advantage of the opportunity to educate your client as much as possible on what to expect in the police case. Address her questions and fears, explain the importance of her being accompanied throughout the process, and orient her to possible difficulties she may encounter along the way. One common frustration of reporting a rape can occur right away at the reporting stage as we explain in the following note.

NOTE: Although most rape cases are eventually assigned a detective to do the in-depth victim interview and to investigate the case,. most police departments won’t allow rape victims to report directly to the detective unit. Police protocol usually requires that rape victims report first to a patrol officer. But the patrol officers are told to handle a rape case by taking only a minimal report and to do only a cursory interview of the victim. The patrol officer is then supposed to pass this mini-report to the detective unit where the case may sit for a day or two (or more) before it’s assigned a detective.

Right off the bat, this added step of going to a patrol officer feels to many victims like they’re being run through a bureaucratic obstacle course. Indeed, that’s pretty much what it is. After making the delicate and difficult decision to report to the police, she then has to arrange to report to a patrol officer with the understanding that the patrol officer doesn’t want to hear the full story. And then she has to anxiously wait around, sometimes for days, to be called by an unknown detective at an unknown time.

This added step frequently produces intense anxiety and frustration for the victim. If the victim isn’t prepared, she can be devastated by what may feel to her like a complete lack of interest on the part of the police. If these are the rules your police department goes by, it’s really important that you explain this problem to the victim ahead of time so she doesn’t get discouraged from continuing before the case even gets started.

NOTE: As with domestic violence, if the victim comes to you before going to the police, it’s best to have the police respond to your office or the victim’s home rather than going over to the police department to give the report. And it’s always a top priority to make sure the victim is never alone when dealing with law enforcement.

NOTE: It’s interesting to note that the San Fernando Valley division of the LAPD which has been able to attain a 93% clearance rate on sex crimes has achieved this success in part by getting specially trained detectives to the scene immediately at the time the rape report is made.

B. The Responding Patrol Officer Takes a Brief Statement from the Victim, and writes a brief report.

The responding officer usually seeks only to obtain enough information to fill out the crime report face sheet. (The face sheet is the first page of the crime report which contains basic data on the type of crime committed and data on the involved parties: the victim, suspect, and witnesses.)

There are two reasons that the responding officer on a rape case generally takes only a brief statement from a rape victim at the initial contact. The first reason is to avoid having more than one victim statement on the record so as to protect the victim’s credibility. One of the first things a defense attorney will do in a rape case is to compare the initial victim statement with the statement given later to the detective. The defense attorney will be looking for even the slightest of discrepancies which the defense attorney can then blow up to monstrous size in the courtroom to destroy the victim’s credibility. “So”, says the defense attorney on cross-examination, “You told the responding officer he had four blue buttons on his shirt. But then you told the detective that there were three green buttons on the shirt. How are we to believe anything you say?”

Since nobody recounts an experience twice in identical form, and since victim credibility is so critical in rape cases, it’s crucial to have only one victim statement on the investigation record.

The second reason the responding officer takes only a brief victim statement is to assure that when the victim does give her statement, the official doing the in-depth interview is a person experienced with rape victim interviews.

In addition to taking a brief statement, the responding officer will also gather or secure any obvious evidence at the scene where the rape occurred.

NOTE: Because responding officers generally spend only a brief amount of time with rape victims, many patrol officers fail to see the pivotal role they play in the success or failure of rape cases. The reality is that responding officers are often the most important officials in the case. When rape victims first come to the criminal justice system they are usually very ambivalent about whether they really want to go through with a criminal case. Their encounter with the responding officer is a rape victim’s testing of the waters. Victims are hyper-vigilant to every nuance of the responding officer’s behavior. Many rape victims make their decision on whether to continue with the case or to retreat based on their encounter with the first responding officer.

C. After Taking a Brief Statement from the Victim, the Responding Officer Calls and Confers with An On-call Detective to Determine What Should Happen next.

There are three principal questions the on-call detective will be considering at this point:

Should a medical/forensic sexual assault exam be ordered, and if so, should that exam be done immediately or can it be scheduled for later?
Should the detective respond immediately to do an in-depth interview of the victim, or can the victim interview wait and be scheduled for a more convenient time? and,
Is there other evidence that needs to be collected right away?
In general, if the victim is an adult and if the rape occurred within the last 72 hours, the detective will call for an immediate medical/forensic rape exam of the victim. The responding officer will then transport the victim to the designated medical facility for the rape exam.

If the victim is an adult and the rape occurred more than 72 hours ago, a medical/forensic exam is usually not ordered, and the victim is usually told that she will be called by a detective in the next couple days. The responding officer then sends his or her report to the detective unit where the case will be assigned a detective for further investigation. (A very common and harmful police error that occurs at this point is that the responding officer fails to give the victim a time frame and/or fails to give the victim a phone number of the detective unit so the victim can call into the detective unit herself when she becomes anxious because a detective hasn’t yet called.)

If the victim is a child, the detective will often ask for a medical/forensic exam even if the assault is more than 72 hours old. This is because lasting evidence of physical injury following sexual assault is much more likely to occur in cases where the victim is a child. For the same reason, the medical/forensic exam of a child is often postponed to a time when it is convenient for everyone involved.

NOTE: In California, and in a number of other states, police are required to inform the local rape crisis center whenever a rape victim is taken to a medical/forensic exam (Cal Penal Code Section 264.2). This is so that the rape crisis center can send an advocate who can accompany the rape victim during the exam.

Furthermore, in California, both police and the medical examiner are additionally required to inform the victim of her right to be accompanied throughout the rape exam (Cal Penal Code Section 264.2 ) and throughout every part of the criminal justice process (Cal Penal Code Section 679.04) by a victim advocate of her choosing and a support person of her choosing. See http://www.justicewomen.com, Know Your Rights.

Law enforcement officials frequently violate these laws.

D. The Medical/forensic Rape Exam Is Carried out on the Victim:

A designated medical practitioner performs the medical/forensic rape exam. It’s important to keep in mind and to inform the victim that the medical/forensic exam is ordered and paid for by the police. She should know that the primary purpose of the medical/forensic rape exam is not to provide medical care for the victim, although the victim’s medical needs should be attended to. The primary purpose of the medical/forensic rape exam is to gather case evidence from the victim’s body. The evidence being sought is usually evidence of injury to the victim and evidence of the perpetrator’s assault, such as semen, hairs, fibers, saliva, or DNA.

The sexual assault medical examiner will first question the victim about details of the attack, chart and photograph injuries, and take vaginal, rectal, and buccal swabs as indicated or not by the victim’s story. The sexual assault medical examiner may also take blood or urine from the victim to be sent to the lab for drug testing. Before giving her blood or urine, the victim should be fully informed about what will be done with these samples and she should be informed about her constitutional search and seizure rights. The problem is that most victims believe and trust that police are testing only for evidence of drugs the suspect may have used to subdue her. But many police, without telling the victim, will also be testing for drugs the victim may have been using illegally. Advocates should find out which drugs police will be testing for and why, so your client can make an informed decision about whether to give blood or urine to police.

In some rape cases, depending on the investigation strategy, police will also do a medical/forensic exam on the perpetrator. Perpetrator rape exams are rare, however, because police generally don’t want to tip the perpetrator at this point to the fact that he is under police investigation.

NOTE: Many people mistakenly believe that the rape exam provides the primary evidence in rape cases. The fact is that the medical/forensic exam rarely provides probative evidence in rape cases of adults.

One problem is that even if evidence gathered at the rape exam matches and identifies the suspect, the defense of most rapists is not a denial that they had sex with the victim. The defense of most rapists is that although they did have sex with the victim, that sex was consensual. As such, any DNA or other evidence found on the victim which identifies the suspect is rendered useless as probative evidence. DNA and other identifying evidence can, however, prevent the rapist from claiming he didn’t have sex with the victim.

Another problem with evidence gathered at the rape exams is that any minor injuries documented on the victim are also generally easily dealt with by the defense attorney with a claim that the consensual sex was rough sex.

NOTE: Because of the highly intrusive and traumatic nature of rape exams, exquisite attention should be given to obtaining a truly informed consent from the victim prior to the medical/forensic the exam. The rape victim must be informed that she can refuse the exam, refuse any part of the exam, withdraw consent at any point, refuse to give blood or urine, or if she consents to give blood or urine, she can refuse to have the blood tested for specific illegal substances. The victim should also be informed that she can refuse a male medical examiner if she chooses.

A very common law enforcement abuse that occurs when rape victims exercise their rights to refuse one aspect or the other of the exam, is for the police officer to accuse the victim of not cooperating with the investigation, and then to threaten the victim that if she doesn’t cooperate fully with the investigation (i.e. submit to whatever the officer wants) there will be no investigation. This common law enforcement threat to rape victims also frequently occurs at a number of other points in rape investigations and prosecutions, such as when rape victims attempt to exercise their rights to privacy, for example, by refusing to turn over her diary to a detective who requests it, or when she insists on her right to be accompanied by an advocate during interviews with police or prosecutors.

Law enforcement intimidations of and threats to rape victims following rape victims’ attempts to exercise her rights are so common that we deal with the issue in more detail later on. For this section, suffice it to say, that it’s important for advocates to be well versed in the law of the victim’s rights and to be willing to protest law enforcement attempts to threaten victims who wish to exercise those rights.

NOTE: Also because of the highly intrusive and traumatic nature of rape exams, it is essential that non English-speaking victims have a professional interpreter present throughout the exam.

E. A Detective Carries out an In-Depth Victim Interview:

The police rape victim interview is both the most crucial evidence in the case and it is the most fragile of any evidence law enforcement is called on to gather. It’s more fragile than lifting a footprint from the sand, and requires the utmost skill from the investigator. For this reason we discuss the in-depth rape interview in much more detail later on. For now, here are some points on how the rape interview fits into the procedural outline of a standard rape investigation.

If there was a medical/forensic exam, sometimes the on-call detective meets the victim at the rape exam and carries out the in-depth victim interview immediately following (or sometimes prior to) the rape exam. Or the on-call detective may schedule the interview for the next day or two days hence. Another common occurrence is that the on-call detective will pass the case on to the head of the sex crimes unit, and there will be a day or two (or more) wait until the case is assigned to a different detective.

In those cases where the in-depth interview is not carried out in the time frame of the initial report, officials frequently fail to tell the victim exactly when that interview will occur. They simply tell her that when a detective is assigned to the case, the detective will give her a call to set up an interview, leaving the victim totally up in the air as to what will be happening when.

In all fairness, the truth is that the responding officer or on-call detective often doesn’t know when the detective assignment and phone call will occur. The problem for the victim, however, is that after having gathered her courage to make the initial rape report, to be left waiting for a phone call on an unspecified time frame from a unknown detective is one of the most traumatic times for rape victims. When that phone call doesn’t come in the first day or two, the victim’s anxiety often mounts to the most unbearable pitch of the whole criminal justice process.

The victims quickly become overwhelmed, thinking their worst fears have come to pass. In the absence of a phone call from a detective, a victim fears that the police probably didn’t believe her or that they don’t think her case is very important. On top of that, many fear that the perpetrator may have found out about her report and is loose out there looking for ways to retaliate against her. Why police can’t take even one minute to care enough about victims to prevent this is beyond me. All it would take is a simple phone call from the head of the detective units to give rape victims a general time frame for upcoming events. But they don’t.

The anxiety rape victims suffer at this juncture is so intense and so common that it’s always a good idea for the advocate to contact the detective squad the day after the initial report in order to closely monitor progress on the case assignment so you can relay information to the victim. Regular phone calls by the advocate to the sex crimes unit commander also usually serve to speed up the process of case assignment and to prevent the case from sitting interminably in a pile.

When the detective does contact the victim, the rape interview, as much as possible, should be scheduled for a time and place that is comfortable for the victim. The detective should inform the victim of her right to have a victim advocate and a support person of her choosing be with her throughout the interview.

The rape interview itself should be detailed and complete. An audio recording should be made of the interview from beginning to end. The rape interview in most rape cases will provide the main leads for further investigation. (See form for evaluating police response to rape for detailed elements of the rape interview itself. http://www.justicewomen.com/help_rape_evaluation.html )

F. A Pretext Call is Set Up for Cases in which the Victim Knows the Perpetrator.

If the victim and perpetrator know each other – which they do in the majority of rape cases – following the rape interview the detective should explain and set up a pretext call. A pretext call is a phone call made by the victim, monitored and taped by police, in which the victim uses a preplanned pretext in an attempt to trick the perpetrator into talking about the rape. When successful, these taped “pretext calls” can all but wrap up a rape case. Perpetrators caught talking about the rape on a tape can usually be talked into accepting a guilty plea, often before the case even goes to court.

Here are a couple of examples of pretexts that can be used:

A victim of spousal rape may call her husband and say something like, “If we’re going to live together again we have to talk about what happened last week…….”

A girl victim of grandfather’s sexual assaults calls grandpa and says, “The doctor told my mother I’ve been having sex and I have to tell her what we’ve been doing……”

A girl victim raped by her father says, “Mom knows what’s been happening and she says I have to go with her to tell the police, but I don’t want to go to the police. And I don’t know what to do…..?”

NOTE: Properly prepared and partnered into the planning of a pretext call, rape victims, including child rape victims, can find the pretext call to be an empowering opportunity as they turn the tables on the perpetrator. Key to good preparation of the victim is the detective’s willingness to engage the victim as a partner in staging the call. It’s the victim, after all, who best understands the psychology, weaknesses, and leverage points of the perpetrator.

Unfortunately, too many detectives are unwilling to give up control of the investigation in this way. Instead of brainstorming with the victim ahead of time, and asking her to run through scenarios in her head, they impose a scenario on the victim at the last minute before having the victim make the call. As such, they not only diminish the empowerment this technique can give the victim, they also lose the powerful investigatory advantage that the victim’s knowledge of the rapist can provide.

NOTE: In addition to the rape victim herself doing the pretext call, pretext calls can be carried out by any number of persons, limited only by the detective’s creativity. Mothers of victims, counselors, teachers, bosses, and even friends of the perpetrator, etc., all have their own unique leverage on the perpetrator. They can often produce successful pretext calls even if an initial victim attempt has failed. Or if the victim has said she doesn’t want to do the call.

NOTE: An interesting aspect of pretext calls is that even the most sophisticated of perpetrators can be often be tricked into talking about their crimes. The rapist’s sense of their power over the victim is often so exaggerated they can’t imagine the victim being capable of seizing the initiative, going to police, and then weaving a plot to trap him. A case in point is a veteran sheriff’s deputy (from a neighboring county) who raped his adult cousin and then in a series of pretext calls the deputy talked on the phone with the victim about the crime for over four hours. When this veteran deputy was confronted by the police with what he had done, the deputy committed suicide.

G. The Detective Carries out Further Investigation.

Following the rape interview, most detectives will proceed to track down evidence leads and interview other witnesses in the case. Most of these leads to evidence and to additional witnesses in a rape case derive from information uncovered in the rape interview with the victim. This is why it’s so critical that the rape interview be caring, competent, and complete. (See below for a list of the kinds of evidence that can bolster or prove a rape.)

NOTE: In situations where there’s been is a successful pretext call which has produced a full statement of guilt by the perpetrator, some detectives may choose to go out and make the arrest at that point, leaving the additional investigative tasks for later, or with the intention of not pursuing them at all. In some such cases, it may be that the detective is rightly confident that the pretext call by itself will be sufficient to get an early guilty plea from the defendant, and so feels that there’s no need to continue with the additional investigative leads.

On the other hand, it’s always a risk, no matter how good the pretext call, to leave leads and witnesses unexamined. If there’s any unforseen hitch in prosecution use of the pretext call, a prosecutor will right away look at the rest of the case. If the investigation is incomplete, the prosecutor may use this as an excuse not to go forward. Even if an arrest is made following the pretext call, the detective should complete the investigation.

NOTE: If the victim hasn’t already told others that she has gone to the police, it’s at this point in the investigation, when the detective goes out to interview other witnesses, that the victim’s family and associates may become aware for the first time that the victim has made an accusation of rape. It’s also the point in time when the perpetrator may first become aware that the victim has gone to the police with her accusation of rape. It’s important that the police and the advocate are particularly vigilant to the victim’s safety, and that, if possible, protective orders are put in place.

NOTE: The issue of protective orders is particularly complex in rape cases. Because much of the rape investigation is best carried out without the perpetrator being aware he is a suspect, most detectives will request that the victim hold off on obtaining a restraining order since serving the order notifies the suspect that the victim has gone to authorities. Another protective order difficulty in rape cases is that standard domestic violence protective orders only apply to those rape cases in which the victim has been raped by a family member. And since criminal court protective orders can’t be obtained until charges are filed in the case, many rape victims go unprotected by protective order until the rape is formally charged by the district attorney for prosecution.

H. the Detective Interviews (Interrogates) the Perpetrator:

The suspect interview (interrogation) is usually the last thing the detective does before wrapping up the investigation. A good suspect interview usually requires that the detective be as knowledgeable as possible about the facts of the case before attempting to interview the suspect. This generally means that the detective should complete as much of the investigation as possible before interviewing the suspect. If the detective interviews the suspect right after a victim reports a rape, it may be an indication either that the detective is very inexperienced or that the detective is planning to throw the case. So the advocate should try to determine if there is or is not a good rationale for early interview of a suspect.

In one such case in which there were three eye witnesses to the sexual abuse of a child, (and the detective knew there were three eye witnesses), the detective phoned the suspect before interviewing any of the witnesses and simply asked the suspect if he had abused his child. Not surprisingly, the suspect told the detective that, No, he hadn’t abused his child. The detective called this a suspect interview. He then wrote up the case report in which he said that there were no witnesses and further, that when the suspect was interviewed he denied abusing the child. The detective then closed the case.

The best laid plans of the detective can quickly be undone, however, if the suspect refuses to talk. A smart suspect will always refuse to talk to police. Fortunately, most aren’t that smart. It’s amazing how many people will talk to police to try and clear themselves. It’s also amazing how often some detectives are able to get a rapist to confess even when there’s no good evidence against the rapist.

However, in the sum, most rapists don’t confess to the rape. Short of a confession, the detective will try at least to get the suspect locked into the details of his story, details which will likely contradict what the detective already knows to be the truth as a result of having done a thorough investigation.

I. The detective obtains an arrest warrant, and makes the arrest.

In most rape cases, police don’t make an arrest in a rape case until they feel they have sufficient evidence to support a prosecution. This long delay before arresting rape suspects is usually very difficult for victims. If the investigation drags on, many victims begin to think the reason the suspect isn’t being arrested is because the police don’t believe her. Not only that, but as the days pass and the suspect isn’t arrested, people around the victim may start taunting the victim, saying things like, “See, even the police don’t believe you.”

It’s crucial that you as a rape victim’s advocate anticipate this common anxiety of rape victims. If your monitoring of the investigation tells you things are proceeding in a reasonable time frame, you need to explain to the victim, and to her family and friends, why it may be a while before the suspect is arrested. If, on the other hand, you feel the detective is dragging his feet, you’ll need to push to get the investigation moving properly. Dragging out a rape investigation is one of the most common tactics used by police to dump these cases, since they do know that rape victims will start to feel the police don’t believe her and she’ll be too mortified to protest.

NOTE: Because most rape arrests are not on-view arrests, when the detective is ready to arrest, he or she generally obtains an arrest warrant before making an arrest. When applying to the court for the arrest warrant, instead of writing up a separate document summarizing the evidence, most detectives take the easier route of simply attaching a copy of the police report to the arrest warrant petition. This fact creates an unique opportunity for rape victim advocates and their clients, since arrest warrants are usually quickly available on the public record.

What this means, is that once police obtain an arrest warrant you or the victim can go to the criminal court clerk and obtain your own copy of the arrest warrant, and lo and behold, you’ll find a copy of the police report attached. Since most states don’t give rape victims the right to obtain a copy of the police report in rape cases, obtaining a copy of the arrest warrant will serve to get you a copy of the police report in a large percentage of cases.

J. The Detective sends his or her completed report to the District Attorney’s Office for review.

In many jurisdictions, including our own, police don’t send all their rape investigations to the district attorney. They only send up those investigations to the district attorney which they feel have a good chance to be accepted for filing.

This is a very bad practice, since it leaves a deep dark hole in which police can routinely dump the rape cases they don’t want to investigate without even district attorney review. And though district attorney review is no guarantee that rape cases will be investigated properly, it does add one more check on the process. Counties should have policies similar to the domestic violence policies adopted by many counties which require that all domestic violence crime reports be sent to the district attorney for review. Counties should have policies which require that all police rape, sexual assault, and child molest cases crime reports be sent to the district attorney for review. We are currently pushing for this measure in our county.

K. The District Attorney decides to file charges on the case, decides to reject the case for filing, or decides to send the case back to the police for further investigation.
No other crime is handled more poorly by the criminal justice system than rape. And not surprisingly, no other serious crime is more under-reported. The vast majority of rape victims, in fact, never do report to police. And of those cases that are reported, the prosecution rate is lower than for any other serious crime. In no other crime is your skillful advocacy more needed, and in no other crime are your advocacy skills more challenged.

The good news is that rapid changes, as uneven as they’ve been, are beginning to bring protection and justice within the reach of many rape victims. Victims themselves are much more able to find support and to speak out. Law enforcement sex crimes investigation techniques and training have improved. And here and there throughout the system there are individuals and units who take sex crimes seriously. Still, successfully advocating for rape victims requires a full awareness of the generally hostile dynamics that rape victims face and requires your unflinching willingness to confront them.

As a crime, rape is in a class by itself; in the experience of the crime, in people’s response to the victim, and in the law enforcement skills needed to investigate and prosecute the crime.

** No other crime ignites such a firestorm of sexist hostility against the victim. Even group discussions of rape in the abstract generally end in high voltage charges against girls’ behaviors, not boys’. And discussions of rape prevention still tend to revolve around how girls should restrict their behaviors, while virtually ignoring what should be the obvious fact that preventing rape requires that it’s boy’s behavior that must change. As such, our social environments are charged against rape victims before they even come forward. And when a rape victim does come forward, the accused male will usually has no trouble at all galvanizing that generalized hostility into a crushing attack on the victim.

Unlike victims of any other crime, rape victims are often subject to concerted ostracizing, disbelief, and blame. Hostilities against the victim quickly gather steam. These hostilities are frequently bolstered by powerful (male dominated) institutions such as schools, churches, businesses, families, and authorities. It’s not at all unusual for the rapists to be actively protected by these institutions, while the victims are easily sacrificed and aggressively swept off the stage.

** No other crime so thoroughly splits the human race in two. On one side, 98% of rape perpetrators are male. On the other side, 94% of rape victims are women and children. As such, when looked at squarely, no other crime more clearly exposes the violent nature of male oppression of females. At least with domestic violence, the sexism that drives the crime can be camouflaged with a simple shift to gender neutral discussion of violence in general. But rape cannot so easily be folded into any other human experience.

When a rape victim comes forward in whichever social environment, her mere existence serves to unmask men’s violent domination of females. So there is a rush to drive her and her credibility off the stage. The dynamic is particularly intense in the most common form of rape, rape perpetrated by someone known to the victim. Exposing fathers, brothers, male teachers, neighbors, co-workers, and classmates as rapists is more than our male dominated social environments will tolerate.

Rape’s raw display of sexism is a big part of the reason why so much energy is expended to keep rape and its victims hidden and off the human agenda. Even task forces and committees on violence against women quickly tend to limit their discussions to domestic violence. And the discussion of domestic violence itself rarely broaches the sexual violence that is so often a significant element of the domestic violence. The fact is rape is present in approximately a third of domestic violence cases. Moreover, rape and sexual violence is a key indicator of domestic violence lethality. Still, three years into the third millennium of civilization, and the crime of rape remains shrouded in myths, fears, and taboos, all of which one way or other serve to ostracize the victims and protect the perpetrators.

** And no other crime cries out more for justice. The outrage of rape to the victim and society goes deeper than physical violence. Rape violates and degrades the human right to self determination on the most intimate level.

Rape and its aftermath leave such deep psychic wounds on its victims that six months following a rape 50% of rape victims have lost their jobs and 50% have suffered the break-up of a primary relationship. In a study in the late 1990’s, the American Medical Association using a number of life indicators found that rape is the most costly of all crimes, both to society and the victims.

To be sure, a rape victim will need your strong advocacy in many areas of her life. But our focus here is the criminal justice system. And perhaps no other system fails her more. When you ask women why they don’t report rape, many say they don’t believe law enforcement will do anything about it. Unfortunately, to a great extent the women are right.

** Law enforcement frequently excuses their poor record on rape by themselves attacking the victim. The victims won’t cooperate, the victims were drinking, the victims have credibility problems, the victims drop out of the prosecution. Or law enforcement resorts to variations of the old dictum that ‘rape is a very easy accusation to make, but very difficult to prove’. (This centuries old dictum, by the way, was only recently removed from California’s standard jury instructions in rape cases.)

Most rapes, many officials will tell you, are a “He said, she said” situation and therefore lack the necessary evidence to proceed. Law enforcement officials level this generalization against rape even though it should be obvious that in all crimes the accused usually contradicts the victim. And while it’s true that rape often lacks the usual kind of physical evidence available in other violent crimes, what officials neglect to mention is that rape also has many investigatory advantages which other crimes lack. For example, in most rape cases there is no who-done-it. In most rape cases, the victim can easily identify the perpetrator, and, in fact, knows the perpetrator well. And that victim knowledge of the perpetrator is an enormous investigatory advantage.

Rape can be solved as easily as any other crime, and many times more easily. It’s just that the techniques required to solve rape cases are unique, and require the kind of law enforcement skills that are unfortunately the skills most ignored or devalued in the law enforcement culture.

Successful rape investigation depends not so much on forensics and physical evidence as it does on the ability of the investigator to communicate and partner effectively with the victims. It requires a comprehensive insight into the perpetrator and victim dynamics of rape. It requires a very special understanding and finesse working with severely traumatized young females, since it is females between the ages of 16 and 24 years of age who make up the overwhelming majority of rape victims.

Successful rape investigation also requires that officers have a confidence and comfort with the many languages of sex: an ability to adapt to any culture and age level on the full range of sexual and reproductive topics from anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, menstruation, ejaculation, pregnancy, STD’s, and more, and to do so in a tone that is truly empathetic to the female point of view. As you might imagine, this requirement alone keeps many even well intentioned officers from being able to handle sex crimes well.

On the face of it, given the hyper-male culture of law enforcement, and the unique and intensely female experience of rape, it’s hard to think of a worse match than law enforcement and rape victims. So many police and prosecutors don’t want to do rape cases, are ill-at-ease with these cases, ill-suited and ill-recruited to handle these cases, and insufficiently trained in rape’s unique investigatory techniques.

** One other unique characteristic of rape helps explain why so few rape cases are prosecuted. No victim is easier to make go away than a rape victim. Instead of protesting system mistreatment, most rape victims are so mortified and wounded by the additional trauma of being re-victimized by the people who are supposed to help, they retreat. One of the most maddening scenarios of a rape case is when the victim is mistreated by officials, the victim understandably retreats from the process, and the officials smugly bellow, “See, how uncooperative these rape victims are.”

Clearly, profound, top-to-bottom changes are needed in law enforcement before rape victims routinely receive the justice and protection that is their constitutional right. In the meantime, you, the rape victim’s advocate, are pivotal. Nowhere is the advocate’s role more critical than in rape cases. The simple fact is that very few rape victims will get a proper criminal justice system response without the help of a vigilant and skillful advocate at her side every step of the way.

Because of the unique course of most rape investigations we begin by outlining a typical rape case police investigation.

A Typical Rape Case
Police Investigation

The following is a procedural outline of a typical police investigation of a rape. Keep in mind that there are many legitimate variations of this procedure, depending on everything from differences in case circumstances to differences in police department structures and policies. If the handling of your client’s case is different from this outline it doesn’t necessarily mean things have gone wrong. The main reason we give this sample procedure is to highlight some of the ways that a rape investigation is distinct from the handling of other crimes, and to help you become familiar with the logic of the investigatory stages of a rape case.
Also, in the following discussions of police rape investigations, we center our focus on the investigation of acquaintance rape. We do this because acquaintance rape, (where the perpetrator is known to the victim), makes up the vast majority of all rape cases. In addition, acquaintance rapes generally require the highest level of skills and sensitivity, both from law enforcement and from advocates.

A Typical Police Sex Crime Investigation

A. The Rape Victim Calls 911 or Calls Police Directly to Report the Rape

B. The Responding Patrol Officer Takes a Brief Statement from the Victim

C. After Taking a Brief Statement from the Victim, the Responding Officer Calls and Confers with An On-call Detective to Determine What Should Happen next.

D. The Medical/forensic Rape Exam Is Carried out on the Victim

E. A Detective Carries out an In-depth Victim Interview

F. A Pretext Call Is Set up for Cases in Which the Victim Knows the Perpetrator.

G. The Detective Carries out Further Investigation

H. The Detective Interviews (Interrogates) the Perpetrator

I. The Detective Obtains an Arrest Warrant and Arrests the Perpetrator

J. The Detective Sends His or Her Completed Report to the District Attorney’s Office for Review.

K. The District Attorney Decides to Either File Charges on the Case, Reject the Case for Prosecution, or Decides to Send the Case Back to the Police for Further Investigation.

A. The Rape Victim Calls 911 or Calls Police Directly to Report the Rape.

Most rape victims don’t report to police immediately following the rape. It’s very common for rape victims to wait days, weeks, or even months before telling anyone. And usually the first person the victim tells is a friend or a counselor at a rape crisis center and not the police. Rape victims have a very difficult time making the decision to report to police.

When rape victims do come to you before having gone to police, take advantage of the opportunity to educate your client as much as possible on what to expect in the police case. Address her questions and fears, explain the importance of her being accompanied throughout the process, and orient her to possible difficulties she may encounter along the way. One common frustration of reporting a rape can occur right away at the reporting stage as we explain in the following note.

NOTE: Although most rape cases are eventually assigned a detective to do the in-depth victim interview and to investigate the case,. most police departments won’t allow rape victims to report directly to the detective unit. Police protocol usually requires that rape victims report first to a patrol officer. But the patrol officers are told to handle a rape case by taking only a minimal report and to do only a cursory interview of the victim. The patrol officer is then supposed to pass this mini-report to the detective unit where the case may sit for a day or two (or more) before it’s assigned a detective.

Right off the bat, this added step of going to a patrol officer feels to many victims like they’re being run through a bureaucratic obstacle course. Indeed, that’s pretty much what it is. After making the delicate and difficult decision to report to the police, she then has to arrange to report to a patrol officer with the understanding that the patrol officer doesn’t want to hear the full story. And then she has to anxiously wait around, sometimes for days, to be called by an unknown detective at an unknown time.

This added step frequently produces intense anxiety and frustration for the victim. If the victim isn’t prepared, she can be devastated by what may feel to her like a complete lack of interest on the part of the police. If these are the rules your police department goes by, it’s really important that you explain this problem to the victim ahead of time so she doesn’t get discouraged from continuing before the case even gets started.

NOTE: As with domestic violence, if the victim comes to you before going to the police, it’s best to have the police respond to your office or the victim’s home rather than going over to the police department to give the report. And it’s always a top priority to make sure the victim is never alone when dealing with law enforcement.

NOTE: It’s interesting to note that the San Fernando Valley division of the LAPD which has been able to attain a 93% clearance rate on sex crimes has achieved this success in part by getting specially trained detectives to the scene immediately at the time the rape report is made.

B. The Responding Patrol Officer Takes a Brief Statement from the Victim, and writes a brief report.

The responding officer usually seeks only to obtain enough information to fill out the crime report face sheet. (The face sheet is the first page of the crime report which contains basic data on the type of crime committed and data on the involved parties: the victim, suspect, and witnesses.)

There are two reasons that the responding officer on a rape case generally takes only a brief statement from a rape victim at the initial contact. The first reason is to avoid having more than one victim statement on the record so as to protect the victim’s credibility. One of the first things a defense attorney will do in a rape case is to compare the initial victim statement with the statement given later to the detective. The defense attorney will be looking for even the slightest of discrepancies which the defense attorney can then blow up to monstrous size in the courtroom to destroy the victim’s credibility. “So”, says the defense attorney on cross-examination, “You told the responding officer he had four blue buttons on his shirt. But then you told the detective that there were three green buttons on the shirt. How are we to believe anything you say?”

Since nobody recounts an experience twice in identical form, and since victim credibility is so critical in rape cases, it’s crucial to have only one victim statement on the investigation record.

The second reason the responding officer takes only a brief victim statement is to assure that when the victim does give her statement, the official doing the in-depth interview is a person experienced with rape victim interviews.

In addition to taking a brief statement, the responding officer will also gather or secure any obvious evidence at the scene where the rape occurred.

NOTE: Because responding officers generally spend only a brief amount of time with rape victims, many patrol officers fail to see the pivotal role they play in the success or failure of rape cases. The reality is that responding officers are often the most important officials in the case. When rape victims first come to the criminal justice system they are usually very ambivalent about whether they really want to go through with a criminal case. Their encounter with the responding officer is a rape victim’s testing of the waters. Victims are hyper-vigilant to every nuance of the responding officer’s behavior. Many rape victims make their decision on whether to continue with the case or to retreat based on their encounter with the first responding officer.

C. After Taking a Brief Statement from the Victim, the Responding Officer Calls and Confers with An On-call Detective to Determine What Should Happen next.

There are three principal questions the on-call detective will be considering at this point:

Should a medical/forensic sexual assault exam be ordered, and if so, should that exam be done immediately or can it be scheduled for later?
Should the detective respond immediately to do an in-depth interview of the victim, or can the victim interview wait and be scheduled for a more convenient time? and,
Is there other evidence that needs to be collected right away?
In general, if the victim is an adult and if the rape occurred within the last 72 hours, the detective will call for an immediate medical/forensic rape exam of the victim. The responding officer will then transport the victim to the designated medical facility for the rape exam.

If the victim is an adult and the rape occurred more than 72 hours ago, a medical/forensic exam is usually not ordered, and the victim is usually told that she will be called by a detective in the next couple days. The responding officer then sends his or her report to the detective unit where the case will be assigned a detective for further investigation. (A very common and harmful police error that occurs at this point is that the responding officer fails to give the victim a time frame and/or fails to give the victim a phone number of the detective unit so the victim can call into the detective unit herself when she becomes anxious because a detective hasn’t yet called.)

If the victim is a child, the detective will often ask for a medical/forensic exam even if the assault is more than 72 hours old. This is because lasting evidence of physical injury following sexual assault is much more likely to occur in cases where the victim is a child. For the same reason, the medical/forensic exam of a child is often postponed to a time when it is convenient for everyone involved.

NOTE: In California, and in a number of other states, police are required to inform the local rape crisis center whenever a rape victim is taken to a medical/forensic exam (Cal Penal Code Section 264.2). This is so that the rape crisis center can send an advocate who can accompany the rape victim during the exam.

Furthermore, in California, both police and the medical examiner are additionally required to inform the victim of her right to be accompanied throughout the rape exam (Cal Penal Code Section 264.2 ) and throughout every part of the criminal justice process (Cal Penal Code Section 679.04) by a victim advocate of her choosing and a support person of her choosing. See http://www.justicewomen.com, Know Your Rights.

Law enforcement officials frequently violate these laws.

D. The Medical/forensic Rape Exam Is Carried out on the Victim:

A designated medical practitioner performs the medical/forensic rape exam. It’s important to keep in mind and to inform the victim that the medical/forensic exam is ordered and paid for by the police. She should know that the primary purpose of the medical/forensic rape exam is not to provide medical care for the victim, although the victim’s medical needs should be attended to. The primary purpose of the medical/forensic rape exam is to gather case evidence from the victim’s body. The evidence being sought is usually evidence of injury to the victim and evidence of the perpetrator’s assault, such as semen, hairs, fibers, saliva, or DNA.

The sexual assault medical examiner will first question the victim about details of the attack, chart and photograph injuries, and take vaginal, rectal, and buccal swabs as indicated or not by the victim’s story. The sexual assault medical examiner may also take blood or urine from the victim to be sent to the lab for drug testing. Before giving her blood or urine, the victim should be fully informed about what will be done with these samples and she should be informed about her constitutional search and seizure rights. The problem is that most victims believe and trust that police are testing only for evidence of drugs the suspect may have used to subdue her. But many police, without telling the victim, will also be testing for drugs the victim may have been using illegally. Advocates should find out which drugs police will be testing for and why, so your client can make an informed decision about whether to give blood or urine to police.

In some rape cases, depending on the investigation strategy, police will also do a medical/forensic exam on the perpetrator. Perpetrator rape exams are rare, however, because police generally don’t want to tip the perpetrator at this point to the fact that he is under police investigation.

NOTE: Many people mistakenly believe that the rape exam provides the primary evidence in rape cases. The fact is that the medical/forensic exam rarely provides probative evidence in rape cases of adults.

One problem is that even if evidence gathered at the rape exam matches and identifies the suspect, the defense of most rapists is not a denial that they had sex with the victim. The defense of most rapists is that although they did have sex with the victim, that sex was consensual. As such, any DNA or other evidence found on the victim which identifies the suspect is rendered useless as probative evidence. DNA and other identifying evidence can, however, prevent the rapist from claiming he didn’t have sex with the victim.

Another problem with evidence gathered at the rape exams is that any minor injuries documented on the victim are also generally easily dealt with by the defense attorney with a claim that the consensual sex was rough sex.

NOTE: Because of the highly intrusive and traumatic nature of rape exams, exquisite attention should be given to obtaining a truly informed consent from the victim prior to the medical/forensic the exam. The rape victim must be informed that she can refuse the exam, refuse any part of the exam, withdraw consent at any point, refuse to give blood or urine, or if she consents to give blood or urine, she can refuse to have the blood tested for specific illegal substances. The victim should also be informed that she can refuse a male medical examiner if she chooses.

A very common law enforcement abuse that occurs when rape victims exercise their rights to refuse one aspect or the other of the exam, is for the police officer to accuse the victim of not cooperating with the investigation, and then to threaten the victim that if she doesn’t cooperate fully with the investigation (i.e. submit to whatever the officer wants) there will be no investigation. This common law enforcement threat to rape victims also frequently occurs at a number of other points in rape investigations and prosecutions, such as when rape victims attempt to exercise their rights to privacy, for example, by refusing to turn over her diary to a detective who requests it, or when she insists on her right to be accompanied by an advocate during interviews with police or prosecutors.

Law enforcement intimidations of and threats to rape victims following rape victims’ attempts to exercise her rights are so common that we deal with the issue in more detail later on. For this section, suffice it to say, that it’s important for advocates to be well versed in the law of the victim’s rights and to be willing to protest law enforcement attempts to threaten victims who wish to exercise those rights.

NOTE: Also because of the highly intrusive and traumatic nature of rape exams, it is essential that non English-speaking victims have a professional interpreter present throughout the exam.

E. A Detective Carries out an In-Depth Victim Interview:

The police rape victim interview is both the most crucial evidence in the case and it is the most fragile of any evidence law enforcement is called on to gather. It’s more fragile than lifting a footprint from the sand, and requires the utmost skill from the investigator. For this reason we discuss the in-depth rape interview in much more detail later on. For now, here are some points on how the rape interview fits into the procedural outline of a standard rape investigation.

If there was a medical/forensic exam, sometimes the on-call detective meets the victim at the rape exam and carries out the in-depth victim interview immediately following (or sometimes prior to) the rape exam. Or the on-call detective may schedule the interview for the next day or two days hence. Another common occurrence is that the on-call detective will pass the case on to the head of the sex crimes unit, and there will be a day or two (or more) wait until the case is assigned to a different detective.

In those cases where the in-depth interview is not carried out in the time frame of the initial report, officials frequently fail to tell the victim exactly when that interview will occur. They simply tell her that when a detective is assigned to the case, the detective will give her a call to set up an interview, leaving the victim totally up in the air as to what will be happening when.

In all fairness, the truth is that the responding officer or on-call detective often doesn’t know when the detective assignment and phone call will occur. The problem for the victim, however, is that after having gathered her courage to make the initial rape report, to be left waiting for a phone call on an unspecified time frame from a unknown detective is one of the most traumatic times for rape victims. When that phone call doesn’t come in the first day or two, the victim’s anxiety often mounts to the most unbearable pitch of the whole criminal justice process.

The victims quickly become overwhelmed, thinking their worst fears have come to pass. In the absence of a phone call from a detective, a victim fears that the police probably didn’t believe her or that they don’t think her case is very important. On top of that, many fear that the perpetrator may have found out about her report and is loose out there looking for ways to retaliate against her. Why police can’t take even one minute to care enough about victims to prevent this is beyond me. All it would take is a simple phone call from the head of the detective units to give rape victims a general time frame for upcoming events. But they don’t.

The anxiety rape victims suffer at this juncture is so intense and so common that it’s always a good idea for the advocate to contact the detective squad the day after the initial report in order to closely monitor progress on the case assignment so you can relay information to the victim. Regular phone calls by the advocate to the sex crimes unit commander also usually serve to speed up the process of case assignment and to prevent the case from sitting interminably in a pile.

When the detective does contact the victim, the rape interview, as much as possible, should be scheduled for a time and place that is comfortable for the victim. The detective should inform the victim of her right to have a victim advocate and a support person of her choosing be with her throughout the interview.

The rape interview itself should be detailed and complete. An audio recording should be made of the interview from beginning to end. The rape interview in most rape cases will provide the main leads for further investigation. (See form for evaluating police response to rape for detailed elements of the rape interview itself. http://www.justicewomen.com/help_rape_evaluation.html )

F. A Pretext Call is Set Up for Cases in which the Victim Knows the Perpetrator.

If the victim and perpetrator know each other – which they do in the majority of rape cases – following the rape interview the detective should explain and set up a pretext call. A pretext call is a phone call made by the victim, monitored and taped by police, in which the victim uses a preplanned pretext in an attempt to trick the perpetrator into talking about the rape. When successful, these taped “pretext calls” can all but wrap up a rape case. Perpetrators caught talking about the rape on a tape can usually be talked into accepting a guilty plea, often before the case even goes to court.

Here are a couple of examples of pretexts that can be used:

A victim of spousal rape may call her husband and say something like, “If we’re going to live together again we have to talk about what happened last week…….”

A girl victim of grandfather’s sexual assaults calls grandpa and says, “The doctor told my mother I’ve been having sex and I have to tell her what we’ve been doing……”

A girl victim raped by her father says, “Mom knows what’s been happening and she says I have to go with her to tell the police, but I don’t want to go to the police. And I don’t know what to do…..?”

NOTE: Properly prepared and partnered into the planning of a pretext call, rape victims, including child rape victims, can find the pretext call to be an empowering opportunity as they turn the tables on the perpetrator. Key to good preparation of the victim is the detective’s willingness to engage the victim as a partner in staging the call. It’s the victim, after all, who best understands the psychology, weaknesses, and leverage points of the perpetrator.

Unfortunately, too many detectives are unwilling to give up control of the investigation in this way. Instead of brainstorming with the victim ahead of time, and asking her to run through scenarios in her head, they impose a scenario on the victim at the last minute before having the victim make the call. As such, they not only diminish the empowerment this technique can give the victim, they also lose the powerful investigatory advantage that the victim’s knowledge of the rapist can provide.

NOTE: In addition to the rape victim herself doing the pretext call, pretext calls can be carried out by any number of persons, limited only by the detective’s creativity. Mothers of victims, counselors, teachers, bosses, and even friends of the perpetrator, etc., all have their own unique leverage on the perpetrator. They can often produce successful pretext calls even if an initial victim attempt has failed. Or if the victim has said she doesn’t want to do the call.

NOTE: An interesting aspect of pretext calls is that even the most sophisticated of perpetrators can be often be tricked into talking about their crimes. The rapist’s sense of their power over the victim is often so exaggerated they can’t imagine the victim being capable of seizing the initiative, going to police, and then weaving a plot to trap him. A case in point is a veteran sheriff’s deputy (from a neighboring county) who raped his adult cousin and then in a series of pretext calls the deputy talked on the phone with the victim about the crime for over four hours. When this veteran deputy was confronted by the police with what he had done, the deputy committed suicide.

G. The Detective Carries out Further Investigation.

Following the rape interview, most detectives will proceed to track down evidence leads and interview other witnesses in the case. Most of these leads to evidence and to additional witnesses in a rape case derive from information uncovered in the rape interview with the victim. This is why it’s so critical that the rape interview be caring, competent, and complete. (See below for a list of the kinds of evidence that can bolster or prove a rape.)

NOTE: In situations where there’s been is a successful pretext call which has produced a full statement of guilt by the perpetrator, some detectives may choose to go out and make the arrest at that point, leaving the additional investigative tasks for later, or with the intention of not pursuing them at all. In some such cases, it may be that the detective is rightly confident that the pretext call by itself will be sufficient to get an early guilty plea from the defendant, and so feels that there’s no need to continue with the additional investigative leads.

On the other hand, it’s always a risk, no matter how good the pretext call, to leave leads and witnesses unexamined. If there’s any unforseen hitch in prosecution use of the pretext call, a prosecutor will right away look at the rest of the case. If the investigation is incomplete, the prosecutor may use this as an excuse not to go forward. Even if an arrest is made following the pretext call, the detective should complete the investigation.

NOTE: If the victim hasn’t already told others that she has gone to the police, it’s at this point in the investigation, when the detective goes out to interview other witnesses, that the victim’s family and associates may become aware for the first time that the victim has made an accusation of rape. It’s also the point in time when the perpetrator may first become aware that the victim has gone to the police with her accusation of rape. It’s important that the police and the advocate are particularly vigilant to the victim’s safety, and that, if possible, protective orders are put in place.

NOTE: The issue of protective orders is particularly complex in rape cases. Because much of the rape investigation is best carried out without the perpetrator being aware he is a suspect, most detectives will request that the victim hold off on obtaining a restraining order since serving the order notifies the suspect that the victim has gone to authorities. Another protective order difficulty in rape cases is that standard domestic violence protective orders only apply to those rape cases in which the victim has been raped by a family member. And since criminal court protective orders can’t be obtained until charges are filed in the case, many rape victims go unprotected by protective order until the rape is formally charged by the district attorney for prosecution.

H. the Detective Interviews (Interrogates) the Perpetrator:

The suspect interview (interrogation) is usually the last thing the detective does before wrapping up the investigation. A good suspect interview usually requires that the detective be as knowledgeable as possible about the facts of the case before attempting to interview the suspect. This generally means that the detective should complete as much of the investigation as possible before interviewing the suspect. If the detective interviews the suspect right after a victim reports a rape, it may be an indication either that the detective is very inexperienced or that the detective is planning to throw the case. So the advocate should try to determine if there is or is not a good rationale for early interview of a suspect.

In one such case in which there were three eye witnesses to the sexual abuse of a child, (and the detective knew there were three eye witnesses), the detective phoned the suspect before interviewing any of the witnesses and simply asked the suspect if he had abused his child. Not surprisingly, the suspect told the detective that, No, he hadn’t abused his child. The detective called this a suspect interview. He then wrote up the case report in which he said that there were no witnesses and further, that when the suspect was interviewed he denied abusing the child. The detective then closed the case.

The best laid plans of the detective can quickly be undone, however, if the suspect refuses to talk. A smart suspect will always refuse to talk to police. Fortunately, most aren’t that smart. It’s amazing how many people will talk to police to try and clear themselves. It’s also amazing how often some detectives are able to get a rapist to confess even when there’s no good evidence against the rapist.

However, in the sum, most rapists don’t confess to the rape. Short of a confession, the detective will try at least to get the suspect locked into the details of his story, details which will likely contradict what the detective already knows to be the truth as a result of having done a thorough investigation.

I. The detective obtains an arrest warrant, and makes the arrest.

In most rape cases, police don’t make an arrest in a rape case until they feel they have sufficient evidence to support a prosecution. This long delay before arresting rape suspects is usually very difficult for victims. If the investigation drags on, many victims begin to think the reason the suspect isn’t being arrested is because the police don’t believe her. Not only that, but as the days pass and the suspect isn’t arrested, people around the victim may start taunting the victim, saying things like, “See, even the police don’t believe you.”

It’s crucial that you as a rape victim’s advocate anticipate this common anxiety of rape victims. If your monitoring of the investigation tells you things are proceeding in a reasonable time frame, you need to explain to the victim, and to her family and friends, why it may be a while before the suspect is arrested. If, on the other hand, you feel the detective is dragging his feet, you’ll need to push to get the investigation moving properly. Dragging out a rape investigation is one of the most common tactics used by police to dump these cases, since they do know that rape victims will start to feel the police don’t believe her and she’ll be too mortified to protest.

NOTE: Because most rape arrests are not on-view arrests, when the detective is ready to arrest, he or she generally obtains an arrest warrant before making an arrest. When applying to the court for the arrest warrant, instead of writing up a separate document summarizing the evidence, most detectives take the easier route of simply attaching a copy of the police report to the arrest warrant petition. This fact creates an unique opportunity for rape victim advocates and their clients, since arrest warrants are usually quickly available on the public record.

What this means, is that once police obtain an arrest warrant you or the victim can go to the criminal court clerk and obtain your own copy of the arrest warrant, and lo and behold, you’ll find a copy of the police report attached. Since most states don’t give rape victims the right to obtain a copy of the police report in rape cases, obtaining a copy of the arrest warrant will serve to get you a copy of the police report in a large percentage of cases.

J. The Detective sends his or her completed report to the District Attorney’s Office for review.

In many jurisdictions, including our own, police don’t send all their rape investigations to the district attorney. They only send up those investigations to the district attorney which they feel have a good chance to be accepted for filing.

This is a very bad practice, since it leaves a deep dark hole in which police can routinely dump the rape cases they don’t want to investigate without even district attorney review. And though district attorney review is no guarantee that rape cases will be investigated properly, it does add one more check on the process. Counties should have policies similar to the domestic violence policies adopted by many counties which require that all domestic violence crime reports be sent to the district attorney for review. Counties should have policies which require that all police rape, sexual assault, and child molest cases crime reports be sent to the district attorney for review. We are currently pushing for this measure in our county.

K. The District Attorney decides to file charges on the case, decides to reject the case for filing, or decides to send the case back to the police for further investigation – justicewomen.com


HOW POLICE INTERROGATION WORKS

$
0
0

20140729-225054-82254746.jpg
There are “Law & Order” addicts everywhere who think they could get a perp to confess. A little glaring, some getting in the guy’s face, a revelation that his fingerprints are all over the murder weapon and voilà! He’s recounting his crime. In real life, police interrogation requires more than confidence and creativity (although those qualities do help) — interrogators are highly trained in the psychological tactics of social influence.

Getting someone to confess to a crime is not a simple task, and the fact that detectives sometimes end up with confessions from the innocent testifies to their expertise in psychological manipulation. No two interrogations are alike, but most exploit certain weaknesses in human nature. These weaknesses typically rely on the stress that results when people experience contrasting extremes, like dominance and submission, control and dependence, and the maximization and minimization of consequences. Even the most hardened criminal can end up confessing if the interrogator can find the right combination of circumstances and techniques based on the suspect’s personality and experiences. In the United States, scholars estimate that somewhere between 42 percent and 55 percent of suspects confess to a crime during interrogation.
Police interrogations weren’t always so complex. Until the early 1900s in the United States, physical abuse was an acceptable (if not legal) method of getting a confession. Confessions obtained by “third degree” techniques — deprivation of food and water, bright lights, physical discomfort and long isolation, beating with rubber hoses and other instruments that don’t leave marks — were usually admissible in court as long as the suspect signed a waiver stating the confession was voluntary. Between the 1930s and 1960s, though, a crackdown on police tactics gradually changed the practice of interrogation.

While the Supreme Court had ruled as early as 1897 against involuntary confessions, it was in 1937 that things really started to change. In the case Brown v. Mississippi, the Supreme Court threw out a “voluntary” confession that was obtained after police officers repeatedly strung a suspect up in a tree and whipped him. The Court’s decision was clear: Confessions obtained by force cannot be used as evidence at trial. By the 1950s, confessions were considered involuntary not only if police beat the suspect, but also if they held a suspect for an unnecessarily extended period of time, deprived him of sleep, food, water or bathroom facilities, promised some benefit if the suspect confessed or threatened some harm if he didn’t.

When the case Miranda v. Arizona reached the Supreme Court in 1966, coercive police interrogation took another blow. Ernesto Miranda had confessed to rape and kidnapping after two hours of interrogation, and the appeal to the Supreme Court alleged that Miranda was not aware of his rights to remain silent (the Fifth Amendment) and to counsel (the Sixth Amendment). The Court ruled in favor of Miranda, and the decision instituted what we’ve come to know as the “Miranda Rights.” To safeguard against a suspect falling into an involuntary confession because he thinks he has no choice but to speak, the police must expressly, clearly and completely advise any suspect of his rights to silence and counsel before beginning an interrogation or any other attempt to get a statement from a suspect. The Miranda decision attempts to eliminate suspect ignorance as a contributing factor to involuntary confessions.

In looking for a replacement for illegal forms of coercion, police turned to fairly basic psychological techniques like the time-honored “good cop bad cop” routine, in which one detective browbeats the suspect and the other pretends to be looking out for him. People tend to trust and talk to someone they perceive as their protector. Another basic technique is maximization, in which the police try to scare the suspect into talking by telling him all of the horrible things he’ll face if he’s convicted of the crime in a court of law. Fear tends to make people talk. For a while, police tried such things as polygraphs to determine if the suspect was being deceptive, but polygraphs and polygraph training are expensive, and the results are almost never admissible in court. But some polygraph analysts, including a man named John Reid, began noticing that subjects exhibited certain outward, consistent physical signs that coincided with the polygraph’s determination of untruthfulness. Reid went on to develop a non-machine-based system of interrogation based on specific types of questions and answers that uncover weaknesses the interrogator can use against a suspect to obtain a confession. Reid’s “Nine Steps” of psychological manipulation is one of the most popular interrogation systems in the United States today. In the next section, we’ll find out about this system.

Common Interrogation Techniques

Modern interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to be like us. Once we start talking, it’s hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it’s harder to start lying. When a police officer tells us our fingerprints were found on the inside doorknob of a home that was robbed two days ago, we get nervous, even if we wore gloves the whole time we were inside.

With a few exceptions, the police are allowed to lie to a suspect to get him to confess. The belief is that an innocent person would never confess to a crime she didn’t commit, even if she were confronted with false physical evidence of her involvement. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case (more on false confessions in the next section), but it’s a big part of the reason why the police are allowed to employ deceptive tactics in interrogation.

The psychological manipulation begins before the interrogator even opens his mouth. The physical layout of an interrogation room is designed to maximize a suspect’s discomfort and sense of powerlessness from the moment he steps inside. The classic interrogation manual “Criminal Interrogation and Confessions” recommends a small, soundproof room with only three chairs (two for detectives, one for the suspect) and a desk, with nothing on the walls. This creates a sense of exposure, unfamiliarity and isolation, heightening the suspect’s “get me out of here” sensation throughout the interrogation.

20140729-225519-82519392.jpg
The manual also suggests that the suspect should be seated in an uncomfortable chair, out of reach of any controls like light switches or thermostats, furthering his discomfort and setting up a feeling of dependence. A one-way mirror is an ideal addition to the room, because it increases the suspect’s anxiety and allows other detectives to watch the process and help the interrogator figure out which techniques are working and which aren’t.

Before the nine steps of the Reid interrogation begin, there’s an initial interview to determine guilt or innocence. During this time, the interrogator attempts to develop a rapport with the suspect, using casual conversation to create a non-threatening atmosphere. People tend to like and trust people who are like them, so the detective may claim to share some of the suspect’s interests or beliefs. If the suspect starts talking to the interrogator about harmless things, it becomes harder to stop talking (or start lying) later when the discussion turns to the crime.

20140729-225623-82583171.jpg
During this initial conversation, the detective observes the suspect’s reactions — both verbal and non-verbal — to establish a baseline reaction before the real stress begins. The detective will use this baseline later as a comparison point.

One method of creating a baseline involves asking questions that cause the suspect to access different parts of his brain. The detective asks non-threatening questions that require memory (simple recall) and questions that require thinking (creativity). When the suspect is remembering something, his eyes will often move to the right. This is just an outward manifestation of his brain activating the memory center. When he’s thinking about something, his eyes might move upward or to the left, reflecting activation of the cognitive center. The detective makes a mental note of the suspect’s eye activity.

Bad Move

In the United States, as many as 80 percent of suspects waive their rights to silence and counsel, allowing police to conduct a full-scale interrogation.
The next step is to turn the questioning to the task at hand. The detective will ask basic questions about the crime and compare the suspect’s reactions to the baseline to determine if the suspect is being truthful or deceptive. If the interrogator asks the suspect where he was the night of the crime and he answers truthfully, he’ll be remembering, so his eyes may move to the right; if he’s making up an alibi, he’s thinking, so his eyes might move to the left. If the interrogator determines that the suspect’s reactions indicate deception, and all other evidence points to guilt, the interrogation of a guilty suspect begins.

The Reid Technique


The Reid technique is the basis of the widely used “Criminal Interrogation and Confessions” manual we already mentioned. It lays out nine steps or issues guiding interrogation. Many of these steps overlap, and there is no such thing as a “typical” interrogation; but the Reid technique provides a blueprint of how a successful interrogation might unfold.

Confrontation

The detective presents the facts of the case and informs the suspect of the evidence against him. This evidence might be real, or it might be made up. The detective typically states in a confident manner that the suspect is involved in the crime. The suspect’s stress level starts increasing, and the interrogator may move around the room and invade the suspect’s personal space to increase the discomfort.

If the suspect starts fidgeting, licking his lips and or grooming himself (running his hand through his hair, for instance), the detective takes these as indicators of deception and knows he’s on the right track.

Theme development

The interrogator creates a story about why the suspect committed the crime. Theme development is about looking through the eyes of the suspect to figure out why he did it, why he’d like to think he did it and what type of excuse might make him admit he did it. Does the suspect use any particular mode of reasoning more often than others? For example, does he seem willing to blame the victim? The detective lays out a theme, a story, that the suspect can latch on to in order to either excuse or justify his part in the crime, and the detective then observes the suspect to see if he likes the theme. Is he paying closer attention than before? Nodding his head? If so, the detective will continue to develop that theme; if not, he’ll pick a new theme and start over. Theme development is in the background throughout the interrogation. When developing themes, the interrogator speaks in a soft, soothing voice to appear non-threatening and to lull the suspect into a false sense of security.

Stopping denials

Letting the suspect deny his guilt will increase his confidence, so the detective tries to interrupt all denials, sometimes telling the suspect it’ll be his turn to talk in a moment, but right now, he needs to listen. From the start of the interrogation, the detective watches for denials and stops the suspect before he can voice them. In addition to keeping the suspect’s confidence low, stopping denials also helps quiet the suspect so he doesn’t have a chance to ask for a lawyer. If there are no denials during theme development, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt. If initial attempts at denial slow down or stop during theme development, the interrogator knows he has found a good theme and that the suspect is getting closer to confessing.

Overcoming objections

Once the interrogator has fully developed a theme that the suspect can relate to, the suspect may offer logic-based objections as opposed to simple denials, like “I could never rape somebody — my sister was raped and I saw how much pain it caused. I would never do that to someone.” The detective handles these differently than he does denials, because these objections can give him information to turn around and use against the suspect. The interrogator might say something like, “See, that’s good, you’re telling me you would never plan this, that it was out of your control. You care about women like your sister — it was just a one-time mistake, not a recurring thing.” If the detective does his job right, an objection ends up looking more like an admission of guilt.

20140729-225915-82755718.jpg
Getting the suspect’s attention
At this point, the suspect should be frustrated and unsure of himself. He may be looking for someone to help him escape the situation. The interrogator tries to capitalize on that insecurity by pretending to be the suspect’s ally. He’ll try to appear even more sincere in his continued theme development, and he may get physically closer to the suspect to make it harder for the suspect to detach from the situation. The interrogator may offer physical gestures of camaraderie and concern, such as touching the suspect’s shoulder or patting his back.

The suspect loses resolve

If the suspect’s body language indicates surrender — his head in his hands, his elbows on his knees, his shoulders hunched — the interrogator seizes the opportunity to start leading the suspect into confession. He’ll start transitioning from theme development to motive alternatives (see the next step) that force the suspect to choose a reason why he committed the crime. At this stage, the interrogator makes every effort to establish eye contact with the suspect to increase the suspect’s stress level and desire to escape. If, at this point, the suspect cries, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt.

Alternatives

The interrogator offers two contrasting motives for some aspect of the crime, sometimes beginning with a minor aspect so it’s less threatening to the suspect. One alternative is socially acceptable (“It was a crime of passion”), and the other is morally repugnant (“You killed her for the money”). The detective builds up the contrast between the two alternatives until the suspect gives an indicator of choosing one, like a nod of the head or increased signs of surrender. Then, the detective speeds things up.

20140729-230027-82827051.jpg
Bringing the suspect into the conversation
Once the suspect chooses an alternative, the confession has begun. The interrogator encourages the suspect to talk about the crime and arranges for at least two people to witness the confession. One may be the second detective in room, and another may be brought in for the purpose of forcing the suspect to confess to a new detective — having to confess to a new person increases the suspect’s stress level and his desire to just sign a statement and get out of there. Bringing a new person into the room also forces the suspect to reassert his socially acceptable reason for the crime, reinforcing the idea that the confession is a done deal.

The confession

The final stage of an interrogation is all about getting the confession admitted at trial. The interrogator will have the suspect write out his confession or state it on videotape. The suspect is usually willing to do anything at this point to escape the interrogation. The suspect confirms that his confession is voluntary, not coerced, and signs the statement in front of witnesses.

When You’ve Got Company

The Just Cause Law Collective warns that if you’re arrested with friends, you’ve got to keep a cool head. Decide beforehand that no one’s going to say a word until everyone has a lawyer, and remind yourself that police will try to play on the natural paranoia that arises when people are separated. The Collective offers a further warning regarding a group arrest: When you have your strategy discussion, don’t do it in the back seat of a police car. If the officers stuffed you all into one car and walked away, they’re recording you.
It should be noted here that in the United States, if at any point during the interrogation the suspect does somehow manage to ask for a lawyer or invoke his right to silence, the interrogation has to stop immediately. That’s why it’s so important to interrupt the suspect’s attempts to speak in the initial stages — if he invokes his rights, the interrogation is over.

The steps we’ve laid out here represent some of the psychological techniques that detectives use to get confessions from suspects. But a real interrogation doesn’t always follow the textbook. Next, let’s take a look at an actual police interrogation that ended with an admissible confession.

A Real Interrogation

On September 1, 2003, Detective Victor Lauria of the Novi Police Department in Detroit, Michigan, used his training in the Reid technique to interrogate Nikole Michelle Frederick. Frederick’s two-year-old step daughter, Ann Marie, was brought to the emergency room near death, with obvious signs of extensive child abuse. Frederick was her primary caretaker and was watching Ann Marie in the time before the trip to the hospital. The interrogation took place over two days, with Frederick being charged with the crime immediately following the first sit-down.

Lauria began with a simple interview, just talking in a non-threatening way to establish Frederick’s baseline reactions:

Lauria: How would you rate yourself as a mother?
Frederick: Um, I think I’m, I’m pretty good. I mean I, I am a little bad with being stern and stricter you know, letting them get away with things.
Lauria: How would you describe Ann Marie?
Frederick: She was a very hard baby. She would, uh, cry all the time. Always wanted to be held … I mean Annie just, I mean she always looks like she’s beaten. She’s always climbing or you know. I always can see a little bit of bruising and scrapes or whatever on her back. Her shins are always bruised.
Since Frederick appeared to be making excuses for Ann Marie’s injuries and setting up a justification — “She was a very hard baby” — and since she was taking care of Ann Marie when the injuries occurred, Lauria predicted guilt and began interrogating her. He proceeded to subtle confrontation, letting Frederick know how she would be caught:

Lauria: There’s a whole line of study in police work that can determine how injuries occur and how old the injuries are.
Frederick: … I don’t even think we’ll find out exactly what happened because the only one that really knows is her and it’s gonna be awfully hard trying to get her to say if anything happened, you know. I’m not trying to be rude or anything, I was just wondering how long this is going to take.
Lauria: Well, like I said, one of the things we’re able to do with those [bruises] is we can date bruises based upon you know whether they’re new bruises just coming in, or whether they’re bruises that are already starting to heal because, you know, doctors and forensic scientists and pathologists study those type of things…
Frederick: Okay.
Lauria: Can you think of any reason why they would determine that those bruises were caused in the last 24 hours and that somebody would suspect that you did this?
Frederick: Um, other than that I was there, no.

Lauria: Do you suspect anybody of doing this?
Frederick: No, I don’t. And that’s what I’m saying, and I, I’m having a hard time believing that it was inflicted on her because, like I said, we would have heard something too, you know…
Lauria: Out of all the people in the house that were there or came in last night, list all the people that you would vouch for that you would say absolutely would not do something to hurt Ann Marie.
Frederick: … I know John wouldn’t do it. I honestly don’t think Brian would do it.
Lauria: Who’d vouch for you?
Frederick: Um, probably John. But see like I don’t, I don’t necessarily, uh, believe what the doctor’s saying and how they were inflicted, whatever.
Five Techniques of Surviving a Police Interrogation (Without Confessing)
Taken from freeBEAGLES’ recommendations for animal rights’ activists (and others) on how to make it through a police interrogation without incriminating themselves or their peers:

Remain silent.

Imagine the words “I invoke my right to remain silent” painted on the wall, and stare at them throughout the interrogation.

Momentarily break your silence to ask for counsel.

Cultivate hatred for your interrogator so you don’t fall into his traps and start talking.

Detective Lauria began developing a theme about an out-of-control situation — Frederick had not premeditated the abuse, she just hadn’t been thinking clearly. But Frederick didn’t like that theme. She asked the detective why he wasn’t believing her story. Lauria then switched to an out-of-control “split second” in which Frederick had hurt Ann Marie. He explained that Ann Marie’s injuries were definitely not from a fall. Someone else had inflicted them, possibly in a “split second” of irrationality. Frederick was listening now, apparently clinging to the “split second” qualification. Lauria further developed the theme by bringing up Ann Marie’s difficult nature and how hard she was to care for — blaming the victim, which Frederick had already shown a tendency toward. Frederick began nodding her head, and Lauria set up an alternative. He told Frederick that “without an explanation of what happened people would assume the worst.” The implied contrast had already been set up: a cold-blooded, vicious attack on a toddler versus a momentary loss of self-control when dealing with a difficult child. The approach worked. According to Lauria’s account:

Over two days of questioning Frederick never asked how Ann Marie was doing. Near the end of the interview I pointed this out to her. She tried to convince me that she had asked several times about Ann Marie’s injuries. She then asked me for an update in her condition. I told her that Ann Marie was brain dead and that she was probably not going to survive. Frederick stated “Oh my God. I’m gonna go for murder.” I then spent another 45 minutes with various themes in an attempt to get further information. After several attempts at denying any further knowledge or involvement in causing the injuries to Ann Marie she admitted to shaking her. After admitting to shaking her, Frederick broke down and cried. She then said “I killed that little girl. I killed that little girl.”
Ann Marie died of her injuries, and Nikole Michelle Frederick stood trial for First Degree Felony Murder. She was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Getting a guilty suspect to confess is the best way to ensure she’ll be found guilty at trial and serve time for the crime she committed. The problem is that while a confession looks really good in court, it’s not an infallible indicator of guilt. That’s a big part of the controversy surrounding police interrogation tactics.

Controversy

Interrogation has always been a controversial subject. Any time a law-enforcement officer goes into a room with a civilian and shuts the door, people are going to question what happens inside. And any time that officer leaves the room with a confession, the questions are going to escalate. Was the confession coerced? Did the police violate the suspect’s rights?

The real question is probably a much larger one: Can police interrogation ever be a fair process? How can a system designed to manipulate a suspect into confessing be non-coercive? The debate about the fairness and morality of police interrogation techniques is an ongoing one, with several issues at the forefront.

First, interrogation is guilt-presumptive process. The goal is to get the suspect to confess. Once the interrogation begins, a detective can unconsciously ignore any evidence of innocence in pursuit of a confession. This is a common psychological phenomenon — people often “filter out” any evidence that does not fit with their already-formed viewpoint. Interrogation is designed to make a suspect extremely nervous, and signs of stress like grooming and fidgeting, which are taken as positive indicators of guilt, might just as easily indicate the stress of an innocent person being accused of a crime he didn’t commit. There’s also the issue of latent coercion. While police may not explicitly offer leniency for a confession or threaten punishment if someone won’t confess, they may imply promises or threats in their language and tone. For instance, when detective Lauria told Nikole Frederick that “without an explanation of what happened people would assume the worst,” Frederick may have understood that to mean that if she confessed to the crime but explained why she did it, the consequences would be less severe than if she kept her mouth shut.

In a more general way, a lot of the human rights concerns surrounding police interrogation have to do with the fact that psychological interrogation techniques bear an uncanny resemblance to “brainwashing” techniques. The interrogator is attempting to influence the suspect without the suspect’s consent, which is considered an unethical use of psychological tactics. A lot of the techniques used to cause discomfort, confusion and insecurity in the brainwashing process are similar to those used in interrogation:

Invading a suspect’s personal space
Not allowing the suspect to speak
Using contrasting alternatives
Positioning confession as a means of escape
Confessions and the Constitution
The primary Constitutional Amendments referred to in Supreme Court decisions regarding the admissibility of confessions are the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees a person’s right to not incriminate himself, the Sixth Amendement, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the right to due process. When the police hold and interrogate a suspect for three days without charging him with a crime, they’ve violated that suspect’s right to due process. When the police string someone up in a tree and whip him until he confesses, they’ve violated that person’s right not to incriminate himself (among other rights).
The more stress a suspect experiences, the less likely he is to think critically and independently, making him far more susceptible to suggestion. This is even more true when the suspect is a minor or is mentally ill, because he may be poorly equipped to recognize or fight off manipulative tactics. A process designed to cause someone so much stress that he’ll confess just to escape the situation is a process that leaves itself open to false confessions. Researchers estimate between 65 and 300 false confessions per year in the United States. Here are just a few false confessions that investigators have uncovered:

Peter Reilly, 1973 Peter Reilly was 18 years old when his mother was found murdered in their home. After eight hours of interrogation by Connecticut police, he confessed to brutally murdering her. A jury convicted him of first-degree manslaughter based on his confession, and he served three years in prison before a judge set him free in the face of new evidence indicating someone else committed the crime.
Earl Washington, Jr., 1982 Earl Washington, Jr., a man described by psychologists as “mildly retarded” with an IQ of 69, confessed to raping and murdering a 19-year-old woman after undergoing interrogation. He was convicted on the confession alone and spent 18 years in prison, half of that time on death row. Nine days before his scheduled execution, the governor of Virginia pardoned him because DNA evidence had revealed that the actual perpetrator was another man. (Watch this video clip of an interview with Earl Washington, Jr., after his release.)
The “Central Park Five,” 1989 After more than 20 hours of interrogation, five teenagers — Raymond Santana, 14, Kharey Wise, 16, Antron McCray, 16, Kevin Richardson, 14, and Yusef Salaam, 15 — confessed to raping and beating a woman jogging in Central Park in New York City. They spent between six and 12 years in prison (four out of the five were tried as minors) before another man confessed to the crime in 2001. DNA evidence confirmed that this other man was in fact the Central Park rapist.
Michael Crowe, 1998 Michael Crowe was 14 years old when police interrogated him without a parent or other adult in the room. He eventually confessed to stabbing his 12-year-old sister to death after the interrogator told Michael of false physical evidence against him. He was charged with the crime, but at pre-trial hearings, a judge deemed his confession to be involuntary. DNA evidence later led police to the man who actually murdered the girl.
Michael Crowe’s entire interrogation was videotaped, and that tape assisted the judge in determining that the confession was involuntary. Just videotaping the confession itself can do little to ensure the legality of the process that led up to it, and critics of police interrogation techniques point to mandatory taping of all interrogations from start to finish as a step in the right direction. Another possible solution to the problem of false confessions is to train police to recognize subtle signs of mental illness that make a false confession more likely. Many within the law-enforcement community cite prohibitive costs as a reason not to mandate solutions like these and maintain that the problem of false confessions is not as big as critics suggest. Still, most of us see one false confession that leads to conviction as one too many – Julia Layton

Sources

“Case Study: Success With the Reid Technique.” http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/JohnReid/articles/97420/
“Central Park Justice.” Online NewsHour, Dec. 24, 2002. http://www.pbs.org/
newshour/bb/law/july-dec02/centralpark_12-24.html
“Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self-Incrimination.” FindLaw. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/09.html
“General Interrogation Techniques.” Just Cause Law Collective. http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=54
Irsay, Steve. “Fear Factor: How far can police go to get a confession?” CourtTV.com. http://www.courttv.com/archive/movie/crowe/fear.html
“Jury: Investigator must pay ex-death row inmate.” CNN.com, May 5, 2006.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/05/inmate.award.ap/index.html

Kassin, Saul M. and Gisli H. Gudjonsson. “True Crimes, False Confessions.” Scientific American Mind. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/pspi/pspi5_2_11-14.pdf
Kurz, Dylan. “Dominance and Submission: How the Police Use Psychological Manipulation to Interrogate Citizens.” http://www.grayarea.com/police8.htm
“Police Interrogation.” freeBEAGLES. http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/interrog.html
Redlich, Allison D. , Ph.D. “Law & Psychiatry: Mental Illness, Police Interrogations, and the Potential for False Confession.” Psychiatric Services.

http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/55/1/19#SEC2

“The Reid 9 Steps of Interrogation, In Brief.” Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation. http://www.law.wayne.edu/Faculty/Fac_web/moran/The%20REID%209%20STEPS%20OF%20INTERROGATION.htm
“The Reid Technique of interviewing and interrogation: Case studies.” Reid.com. http://www.reid.com/success_reid/r_cstudies.html



SERIAL KILLERS: A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE’S TAKE

$
0
0

1. Credentials and Interest
It was during my tenure of over 20 years as a homicide Detective and Detective Sergeant with the Miami Police Department that I investigated six serial murder cases. I like to think that the experience I gained in those investigations has given me a most rudimentary glimmer of understanding as to what motivates a serial killer in undertaking his atrocities.

These six serial murder cases, which accounted for the murders of nearly 50 people, all took place in the Miami area. All six offenders were men: two Hispanic/white males, two African-American males, and two white Anglo males. They all had different, although equally macabre, reasons for their acts. Three of the killers confessed their crimes while the others took their reasons to their graves, dying of AIDS while in prison or taking their own lives. The three men who confessed provided us with many, sometimes distressingly vivid, details of how, why, and when they committed their crimes.

Although part of my job as a homicide detective is to analyze the motives of killers, my interest goes beyond the requirements of my job. I have acquired and extensively studied a lengthy and well-written dissertation prepared by a convicted and, to me unknown, serial killer, and material from this document is incorporated into this article. Because I do not know his name I cannot give specific credit to its author.

I can, however, vouch for the validity of this document by providing some history about how I obtained it. While working the Rory Conde case, the investigative team was receiving copious leads, but none were panning out. One of the investigators assigned to the Task Force received by mail a letter from a local therapist. The author of this glimpse into a killer’s mind prepared it as part of his psychological treatment at the request of his therapist, who chose to protect the identity of his source. The document that we received was a photocopy of what had apparently originally been handwritten on a lined legal pad in a consistent fine point that appeared to have been ink. The letter was perfectly legible and the printing was so nearly perfect that at first glance it appeared almost to have been typewritten. Close inspection revealed, however, the slight variations of human penmanship. The writing was meticulous, a nearly perfect hand that neatly compacted two rows of text between every two lines. Approximately five pages long, the document showed no mistakes and appeared completely free of erasures, strike-outs, even hesitation. If the writer employed such precision and planning in implementing the hideous deeds he described, it seemed nothing short of miraculous that he was ever caught. With hundreds of years of collective investigative experience behind the assembled investigative team, or Serial Killer Task Force as we were called, we harbored no doubt that whoever had written this document was a perverse, sadistic, frighteningly sick individual who was highly likely to have committed the unspeakable acts that he reduced to writing.

Revealed in this article are presumably candid thought processes provided by this protected source, as well as information provided by serial killers whom I have investigated. Although serial killers vary in the details of their mental constructs, certain procedural similarities are common among them, and enable us to construct a very general profile. In this article I attempt to track similarities among people who kill strangers.

2. Common Knowledge
During the six serial killer cases I investigated, I dealt extensively with Criminal Profilers from both the FBI and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). Their training and work experience are extensive and years in the making, and I have found these specialists to be truly invaluable resources.

First, a few statistics. Keep in mind, of course, that these are generalities; always there will be those who fall outside the bell curve. The following is a consensus of the majority of criminal profilers, based on actual cases they have investigated. Serial killers tend to be mostly white males; between 20 and 40 years of age . Most, although not all, serial killers begin their lives as petty criminals; initially they may have been peeping-Toms, animal torturers, arsonists, or any other of a wide range of pre-killing crimes. I have yet to hear of a provably “upstanding” citizen who begins his life of crime by killing people for personal and/or sexual gratification. In addition, as you may have observed from the examples given above, the “petty crimes” engaged in by nascent serial killers tend away from harmless “pranks” such as vandalism and opportunistic burglary and in the direction of more highly “anti-social” behaviors.

3. Genesis of a Serial Killer
Serial killers frequently suffer from low self-esteem, often complicated by some sort of sexual dysfunction. Many were themselves the victims of sexual abuse and/or were raised in violent households. Never having received much training in social graces and lacking in confidence, they tend to be introverted and friendless. Some, like emotional adolescents that never reach adulthood, maintain unhealthy ties to a family member, often the mother. And although certain serial killers have counted their mothers among their victims, in my belief such instances are not sexual in nature, but more a revenge or to halt years of real or perceived domination. In nearly all cases, deviant and recurring sexual desires and fantasies are what drive these people to murder multiple victims.

Spending much time alone, those who will depart the social norms tend to inhabit an imaginary world. Their fantasies, which in my experience always involve sex, begin small. At first they are able to achieve gratification merely by imagining these scenarios, and in that way they may not differ from other people who for reasons of their own concoct socially unacceptable fantasies that never see the light of day.

For those who develop into serial killers, at some point imaginary scenarios start to become insufficient. When thoughts and self-stimulation no longer suffice, some of these people may act their visions out in the limited but sometimes quite realistic realm of sado-masochistic sex. In time, even that is not enough. For reasons of their own, some people require more and greater stimuli to satisfy their turbulent desires, until finally they enact the killing of their first victim.

This is a big step, even for a highly aberrant mind. The perpetrator himself may be shocked and frightened, even disgusted, and it may take a while for the first-time murderer to reestablish his personal mandate. While doing so, he may relive his actions over and over in his mind, thus receiving again that gratification obtained during the actual murder and, perhaps, by doing so actually setting the stage for his progression. Some killers take something, a trophy if you will, from their victim. It may be an article of clothing or a photograph, a swatch of hair or piece of jewelry, something of use to embellish their mental re-living of their actions. This suffices for a while but, in time, their ability mentally to revisit their victim’s demise will fade. By the time this happens, if he has reconstructed his entitlement and begins to hunt another victim, such a person has come to fit the classical mold of a serial killer.

4. Victim Selection
How does a serial killer select victims? The traditional school of thought holds that generally they select victims based on certain physical and/or personal characteristics. This assertion presupposes that, within the mind of each serial killer, there evolves synthesis of preferred characteristics and, ultimately, a clear, specific picture of his “ideal” victim, be it male or female, black or white, young or old, short or tall, large busted or small, shy or forward, and so on. Then, when that “typical” serial killer begins an active search for human prey, he will go to certain lengths to capture and victimize only those individuals who closely fit the mold.

Unexpectedly, I have observed that most serial killers never actually find and kill their “dream victim.” People fitting such detailed and perfected images may not only be hard to come by, but may also not be easily available in the venues haunted by “hunting” serial killers. So when that ideal victim cannot be found, and when their internal impetus becomes powerful enough, they will settle for a substitute. Ignoring for a moment the disparity between deviant human and normal feline behavior, a serial killer can be compared to a hungry lion that lies in wait for his favorite meal. It may be the lion knows an impala has the most tender or tasty meat. He waits for an opportunity to kill and eat the impala and in doing so may allow easy but not-so-attractive prey to pass unmolested. In time, hunger pains growing and no impala in sight, the famished lion will settle for an unwary bird that happens by. After devouring the bird, which gives his hunger a brief respite, the lion again has time to savor the taste of an impala, and the cycle begins again.

Like the lion, a serial killer just will not defer acting out his urge to kill simply because his “ideal” victim refuses to materialize at his beck and call. But his reason for settling for something less divulges from that of the lion. There are two basic, interrelated reasons for this disparity. The first centers on the extra caution exercised by a serial killer in his search for a victim; the second, upon the nature of the compulsion that drives him to violence.

Addressing the former reason first, it can be said that a serial killer is among the most alert and cautious of all human beings. Such caution can be explained by his foremost concern, that being to carry out his activities without being caught, that he may continue to enjoy his pursuits. Incidentally, this awareness of right versus wrong, at least to the extent of shielding his own identity, distinguishes the mental processes of a serial killer, however deviant they may be, from the insanity manifested by true psychosis. However much he has inwardly justified his intentions, he nevertheless does have an unacknowledged sense or awareness of the heinous-not to mention illegal-nature of the acts he will commit. He is aware of the stakes involved-that there is absolutely no room for error-and therefore will mark no one for his prey unless he perceives the odds to be overwhelmingly in his favor. His motto may well be “whom I cannot seize safely, I will not seize at all.”

In theory, a serial killer could reject all other easy prey until; at last, his “ideal” victim was to appear in circumstances perfectly suited to his caution. If that were often true, however, we may not have run across many instances of serial murders. But this intense and mounting hunger for real-life violence against a real-life captive can be contained only so long before it inevitably compels him to settle for second-best. The ideal victim of a human serial killer may be a voluptuous blonde movie star or a beautiful brunette model, but his search for this richly imagined victim may well meet with failure. Failure is something the serial killer cannot tolerate, so he settles for an easier target, usually a prostitute, or a homeless or drug-addicted woman. These types of victims, although not the killer’s “ideal or dream” victim, make easy targets. They are usually willing to go with the killer to another location with the lure of money and/or drugs, thus giving the serial killer the opportunity to have the victim on his turf. Additionally, the killer may have prepared a killing scheme that can include restraints, knock-out drugs, or a variety of contingency plans that he has carefully prepared to snare his victim.

The first time he kills may not be perfectly choreographed. Sometimes it may actually take the perpetrator by surprise or be accidental in nature. But, inspired by the intense satisfaction the killing produces, he starts to plan in earnest. As he perfects his trade, future victims may increasingly undergo a more torturous, orchestrated, even ritualistic death.

5. Victim Objectification
As a serial killer steps away from his base, whatever it may be, to begin the hunt for human prey, it is almost always true that he knows absolutely nothing about the person who is fated to become his victim. This is true even in the case of such serial killers as William Cody in Colorado, who cultivated his victims over lengthy periods (acquiring their possessions as well as their trust) before finally and viciously ending their lives. But for him as well, each future victim began as a stranger about whom he knew nothing. In this way does a serial killer differ from a man who, in a burst of anger, kills his adulterous wife, as well as the cold-blooded planner who kills for revenge?

It may be that having no prior knowledge of a future victim further enables the process of that victim’s objectification. For as far as he is concerned, his next victim is not even a human being, in the accepted sense. So, well before he ever crosses paths with his next victim, he has already stripped that person of all human meaning and worth; he has unilaterally decreed from afar that the person is deserving of no human consideration whatsoever. Thus, then, in a serial killer’s perception of his victims; past and future: that each is nothing more than an object, depersonalized in advance, existing only for himself and his enjoyment, and solely to be seized and used as he sees fit. Moreover, he perceives his unseen prey not just as an object to be used, but as an object unworthy of any consideration, worthy only of extreme contempt, vicious abuse, and ultimate destruction.

Why does the serial killer hold such an extreme and irrational disregard for others? How can he so utterly despise and count worthless another human being whom he has even yet to meet? The answer to these questions is that, after years of privately nurturing and reinforcing his compulsion for violence, a serial killer has arrived at a place where he is compelled to act out his brutal fantasies. This mandates the killer to perceive living human beings-the only pool from which he can obtain real-life victims-as worthless objects deserving the violence he desires to mete out. Mentally he transforms them into hateful creatures, because, in the twisted morality of his own making, it is only against such richly deserving objects that he can justifiably and joyfully inflict his personal brand of justice. Perhaps, in the carefully constructed mentation of a serial killer, no one but himself really deserves to live.

To preserve this mentation, a serial killer must lie to himself. He lies as he denies his own “badness” and projects it upon his as-yet free, future victim. He lies as he stands in judgment and pronounces his victim “guilty” for the “crime” of imagining him- or herself a worthy human being. All such self-serving justifications, of course, are nothing more than self-delusion that has come to be, in the killer’s mind, reality. To a serial killer, such a construction of reality is entirely necessary. For deep inside of himself, each serial killer contains an unacknowledged awareness of the fact that his future victims are innocent human beings, utterly undeserving of his wrath. Yet, to admit this fact, he would also have to recognize that he, and the violence he intends to inflict, is altogether unjust and wrong. And, for a man grown accustomed to the “goodness” and “rightness” of his proclivity for violence and the pleasure it provides, any such admission of actual wrong is impossible to countenance.

6. Denouement
Once a serial killer is in possession of a living victim, and has this victim where he feels safe enough to act out his fantasies, the acts he carries out are often performed as if on “auto-pilot.” The killer’s acts appear to be a close reenactment of what he previously did in his imagination. So, from among an array of violent fantasies, he picks and chooses the individual cruelties that he feels will assure the most in the way of “self-fulfillment.” Yet, if a serial killer places this kind of special emphasis on the careful and systematic acting out of his favorite mind pictures, it is only because of the tremendous meaning and pleasure he derives from watching the degrading, dehumanizing effect they have upon his victim as he methodically carries them out. To him, nothing is more important than to see his victim reduced to the very lowest depths of misery and despair. For if there is any single reason that a serial killer does what he does, it is so that he may feel enlarged and magnified in his own eyes-through the willful and violent degradation of another human being. This need for self-magnification is always, I believe, a mandatory pre-requisite to any episodes of violence.

As for the actual commission of the murder itself, I believe this is usually nothing more than a postscript to a serial killer’s overall scheme of violence. His real gratification comes from the subjugation, terrorization, and brutalization of his victim, and almost not at all from the actual murder itself. Thus, from a serial killer’s viewpoint, his victim might be likened to a disposable paper cup, from which he takes a long and satisfying drink of water. Once the water is gone, his thirst quenched, the cup has served its purpose; it is useless, and therefore can be crushed without thought and thrown away without concern. Since he has met his need to terrorize and abuse, his victim is perceived as an object of inconvenience, a worn-out and no-longer-needed piece of baggage. So, his only concern now is for quick extermination and safe disposal of the victim he no longer needs or wants.

Once he murders his victim, a serial killer’s tactics for disposal of the body remain entirely self-centered. If, for example, he takes the time and effort to bury his victim’s remains, he almost certainly does this not out of any last-minute concession toward decency, but, instead, simply to hide the evidence. Should conditions be favorable, he will simply dump the body unceremoniously someplace where prompt discovery is unlikely, unwilling either to make the effort to dig, or risk being seen digging, anything so eye-catching as a body-sized hole in the ground.

Eager though he may be to be rid of the victim’s body, a typical serial killer, if he has a choice, is not apt to dispose of the body in open view, where it can be quickly and easily found. Although certain serial killers have done exactly this, taking additional and special delight in flaunting their atrocities, I believe most have no desire to advertise what they have done. They have already had their excitement and experienced their relief. Anything else is anticlimactic. They may go to great lengths to cover up their tracks, only so that a body cannot be traced back to them. One Florida serial killer, Danny Rolling, took a great deal of pleasure in strategically and carefully positioning his dead victims in the most shocking pose he could concoct. When police entered the victims’ rooms, they were greeted by the deceased bodies positioned in a variety of graphic and ghastly poses.

A serial killer generally does have an idea for where he wants to dispose of the victim’s remains, or at least, he has a general idea of the type of locale that would best suit his needs. Usually, this is a remote or secluded locale, a place where he can discard the victim’s body quickly and without the likelihood of being seen, yet which affords some ready concealment over his victim’s remains. If the whole violent episode occurred at such a locale in the first place, he will simply kill and leave his victim right there. If not, he will generally always put forth some effort to reach a secluded and preferred dumping ground. But, as always, his every action will be governed solely by self concern.

It is fortunate for us, investigators trying to solve these brutal crimes, that serial killers are not perfect. Because of their human nature, they, in most cases, unknowingly leave clues behind. It is a known fact in criminal investigations that, as well as leaving something behind, a perpetrator will always, even if unconsciously, take something from the scene of the crime. This is true not just of serial killers, but of nearly all crime scenes. These clues are often very subtle and nearly impossible to identify and collect. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to secure a crime scene and search for these faint clues the killer has inadvertently left behind. If we are to have any hope of solving these cases, it is imperative that we not overlook or miss those subtle clues the killer provides.

7. Case Histories
Some of the serial murder cases I investigated conformed to these generalities while others did not; variations in such exceptionally deviant behavior are only to be expected. In the case of Charles Williams, one suspect who died of AIDS in a Florida penitentiary, many of what we came to believe were his victim’s deaths were not initially classified as murders. The original detectives and medical examiners investigating these cases in a predominantly low-income area of Miami found large quantities of drugs in the bodies of women, most of whom were, based on previous arrest histories and family interviews, known prostitutes and/or drug addicts, and consequently most of these deaths were initially classified as drug overdoses. But as the body count among such women in a relatively circumscribed area continued to rise, we homicide investigators became increasingly concerned that a pattern was emerging. Consequently many of the cases were reopened, bodies disinterred, and autopsy findings reviewed.

Williams was born and raised in Miami and lived in the same neighborhood that the murders took place. He would lure his victims, provide them with drugs, have sexual intercourse with them, and manually strangle them during the sex act. I speculate that he derived his pleasure from not only the sexual act, but also by being in such total control that their lives were given to satisfy his unnatural needs. In one instance, a Miami police officer ran right by Williams as he was having sex with his victim in a field. The officer, involved in a foot chase of another criminal, glimpsed but paid no further attention to the couple. It was not until the next day when the victim was found lying in the precise spot where the officer had seen the couple that realization dawned. Unfortunately but understandably, given the circumstances of the sighting, the officer did not recognize Williams as the person who was having sex with the prostitute.

Although I actively participated in this investigation, the credit for actually solving the case and gathering the evidence to convict Williams goes to then-Homicide Detective Tony Rodriguez, now a Captain with the Miami Police Department. The investigation spanned a period of many years and was ultimately focused on Williams through DNA testing, bite-mark comparisons, and Williams’s denial-which flew in the face of his known proclivities of ever having been with the victim. DNA testing was in the infancy stage at the time Williams was killing his victims, but DNA nevertheless linked him to the decisive case he was charged and convicted with. This lead to at least seven deaths being reclassified and attributed to Williams, who was ultimately tried, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Although Williams was suspected of having killed over 30 women in the greater Miami area, comprising several different police jurisdictions, in the end he was charged and convicted on just one Miami Police Department case.

In the case of Rory Conde, nicknamed “The Tamiami Strangler,” six prostitutes were found manually strangled and their bodies discarded at various locations near US-41, which in Miami is called Tamiami Trail. Conde’s wife of many years lived in constant fear of beatings and abuse at Conde’s hands. Once when his wife was absent Conde brought a prostitute home and dressed her in his wife’s pajamas, videotaping their sex acts. When his wife eventually discovered the videotape, she moved out. The couple had several children and Conde had trouble visiting them as he tried to reconcile with his estranged wife. In his confession he blamed the prostitutes for his failed marriage and for losing his children.

Of the six people Conde killed, five were women and one was a transvestite. They were all prostitutes, picked up from within a few-blocks-square area known as a hangout for quick sex. Conde had sex with all of his victims and would strangle them during the sex act. The women were not beaten or brutalized; they all were strangled manually, with little other trauma. After killing his victims, he would often talk to the corpses, giving them advice-as though by such taking of extreme control he had made them “his.” He would always re-dress the women after killing them and discard their bodies in locations such as residential neighborhoods, where they were easily discovered. Initially, when we discovered the second victim, we suspected a serial killer, but were not one hundred percent sure. This fact somehow made its way into the media and with his third victim, Conde wrote a message on her back with a permanent magic marker, leaving us not doubt this was his third victim. Apparently Conde wanted the police to know and inform the media that he was responsible for all three killings. In this message he indicated he would call one of the local television anchors, but he never did. And his killings continued.
The woman who was to become Conde’s seventh victim was able to escape and notify the police, and this ultimately led to his apprehension. Conde had captured this woman and left her locked in his apartment while he attended a court appearance on a shoplifting charge. The terrorized woman escaped from the apartment and led us back to his apartment, where he was captured on his return. Once Conde’s potential victim explained some of the details of her terrifying experience, investigators were practically certain he was the “Tamiami Strangler.” Some tire tracks left on the scenes had been positively linked to an older model Toyota Celica. A quick computer check verified that he owned the exact type of car we were looking for. He was convicted of one of the murders and sentenced to death. He subsequently pled guilty to the others and was sentenced to five consecutive life sentences without parole. Conde was not a “typical” serial killer in that he did not apparently achieve any sexual gratification in torturing or beating his victims. Yet, he did achieve a peculiar satisfaction in his perception that-following his own pleasure-he was ridding the world of the type of woman who had caused his family life to disintegrate.

The forth serial killer investigation in which I participated does not fit the mold of “serial killer,” so far as one exists. Robert Rozier was a former pro football player drafted by the St. Louis Cardinals who later played with the Oakland Raiders. He joined a radical black-supremacist Hebrew sect called the “Temple of Love.” The cult, led by self proclaimed “Son of God” Hulon Mitchell Jr., who called himself Yahweh Ben Yahweh, was suspected of having killed 14 people in various states. Although neither Rozier nor Mitchell killed for sexual gratification or stimulation, their murders were carried out as a power struggle to keep cult defectors from ruining Mitchell’s eight-million-dollar Miami empire. As proof of the killings, Mitchell required that Rozier sever the ears of his victims and bring them to him. Although the purpose of most killings was simply to keep cult members “in line,” several white male victims were randomly murdered as part of the initiation to the secret “brotherhood.” Severing the ears of victims threw investigators off track for a while: they hypothesized that the killer could have been a crazed war veteran, since some had been known to cut off the ear of a dead enemy soldier for some macabre reason.

Rozier was convicted of committing four murders under orders from the cult. He later admitted to seven killings and was sentenced to 22 years in prison, agreeing to cooperate with the authorities. He was released after serving just 10 years and became a federally protected witness. After relocating to his California home he violated his program and, under California’s “three strikes law,” was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The fifth serial-killer case I helped investigate was more notorious. In the mid 1980s, Christopher Wilder, the jet-setting racecar driver and photographer, scoured the country for beautiful women, luring them with the pretext of being a fashion-model photographer. Wilder was a more sadistic killer, systematically torturing his victims with electricity, even gluing their eyes closed with superglue. During the Miami Grand Prix, an aspiring model named Rosario Gonzalez, hired to work at the Grand Prix, met Wilder. Although we may never know the exact details of what transpired, we suspect he enticed her with the prospect of her photographs appearing in a prominent magazine.

Ms. Gonzalez apparently went with Wilder and met her demise. To this day her body has never been found. Just recently, I spoke to Lieutenant Jorge Morin who, when Rosario Gonzalez disappeared, was the lead homicide detective assigned to her case. Nearly 20 years after Rosario vanished, Morin is still baffled at the fact her body was never found. Although there was never any solid evidence that she was in fact dead, the investigation led us to that assumption, and Lieutenant Morin hopes someday to bring closure to this as-yet-unsolved investigation. Wilder was suspected of using this same MO to torture and kill at least eight women, and was the subject of a nationwide manhunt that culminated in a police chase. On the verge of capture, he shot and killed himself.

I also helped investigate another very notorious serial killer who escaped apprehension through suicide. This case too spanned several states and concluded on a houseboat in Miami Beach. Although none of his murders actually took place within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Miami, the close proximity of Miami Beach enabled my detectives and me to assist the Miami Beach Police Department. Andrew Cunanan had been tracked across the United States after a multi-state killing spree, his guns linking one case to another. After killing Gianni Versace as the man was entering his home, Cunanan found temporary refuge in an empty houseboat. He lived there for many days after the murder and was discovered by the houseboat’s caretaker, who ran out and notified the police. With the houseboat surrounded and bullhorns beckoning Cunanan to come, he shot himself in the head. Once again a serial killer took his demented reasons for his actions to his grave.

The final serial killer case in which I was involved was that of Fransisco Del Junco, a Cuban Mariel refugee who severely beat and set fire to four African-American prostitutes, killing all of them. By the time the second victim was found, in almost the same location as the first, we knew we were dealing with a serial killer. Linked by more than proximity, the first two victims’ injuries were nearly identical. All four women were found in areas of Miami frequented by homeless people and low-priced prostitutes. Hundreds of federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel began interviewing, photographing, and obtaining DNA samples from hundreds of Miami’s homeless community. One woman who claimed she was attacked, months before, by a Hispanic man from whom she was able to escape became one more potential witness among hundreds of other leads we were following. Months later, this same woman notified a uniformed police officer that the man who had attacked her was riding a bicycle in the area. All Miami police officers were aware of the high-profile serial-killer case. Anticipating that the serial killer was overdue for killing again the Task Force was out in full force, and soon after the uniformed officer’s radio transmission the cyclist was located. Within minutes I arrived at the scene.

Weeks earlier, the body of Del Junco’s forth victim had been discovered in an abandoned gas station. Inside, acoustic ceiling tiles had fallen under the weight of water from a leaky roof and were strewn about the floor. After having stepped in some greasy oil from the work area of this garage, Del Junco then left shoe prints on several of the white ceiling tiles. This left near-perfect impressions of a very distinctive shoe pattern. For months I visited dozens of shoe stores looking in vain for this pattern, which had become deeply ingrained in my memory.

My first request of the detained cyclist was to see the bottom of his shoe. When he lifted his foot, at last I saw the pattern I had so desperately been trying to identify. This, coupled with the fact a small pill container containing gasoline was strapped to the underside of his bicycle seat, left no doubt in my mind he was our killer. It took nearly four days of interviewing before Del Junco admitted his atrocities-four days during which, because he had not been charged, he was allowed to return home and go to work under constant police surveillance. When he finally confessed, Del Junco blamed voices in his mind that ordered him to do these things. He is charged in all four murders and is currently awaiting trial in Miami.

The profile I submit in this article is only that, a profile. People who kill strangers all have their own macabre reasons for their acts. Nevertheless, we can learn from those who are willing to divulge their reasons, and sometimes from the acts of those who don’t. Since retiring from the Miami Police Department in May of 2002, I have continued my quest to learn all that I can about serial killers and the gruesome reasons they contrive for their ghastly deeds. I plan to interview imprisoned serial killers to further educate myself on their behaviors, extracting information that may be of predictive or clinical use, and present my findings in book form – Lieutenant Nelson Andreu (retired) Miami Police Department


NEW CLUES AT THE JONBENET RAMSEY MURDER SCENE MAY SNARE THE KILLER

$
0
0

20 July 2012

- Her life was cut tragically short 16 years ago when she was found bound and gagged with duct tape in her parent’s basement, bludgeoned to death.
But for six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey, there could be new clues into the horrific murder that has fascinated America for more than a decade.
The former detective on the case is officially breaking his silence, saying that overlooked clues like cobwebs and a child’s toy could prove important in finding the killer in the high-profile cold case.

20140730-014938-6578741.jpg
In his self-published book, Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet Ramsey?, former detective Jim Kolar reveals thousands of pages worth of investigations and police reports.
He told the Daily Beast that he wanted the truth to be out in the public domain, and has a theory that a children’s toy could be responsible for the marks on JonBenet’s back.
The child’s father, John Ramsey, told police in 1996 that an intruder broke through a window in the basement.
But in macabre police video that shows the basement hours after JonBenet was found dead, Koler points out that there are wispy cobwebs, moving ever so slightly.
Koler speculates that an intruder would have brushed away the cobwebs upon entering the Ramsey’s residence, and thus JonBenet’s killer would have already been inside the house.
On Christmas Day of 1996, the family received a ransom note saying they had kidnapped JonBenet and were demanding $118,000 – the amount of a bonus Mr Ramsey had recently received – or else she would be beheaded.
But it was not long before her body was found in the basement of the house.
Her wrists were tied above her head, and she had duct tape over her mouth. An autopsy report revealed that she had been strangled and bludgeoned to death.
Within hours, the Ramseys themselves became the chief suspects of the investigation and police were later criticized for losing focus of the crime scene and other leads by concentrating on the family – including JonBenet’s brother Burke – instead of following up other leads.
For the next 12 years, the blame for their beautiful daughter’s death – who was given the name Little Miss Sunshine – lay largely on their shoulders as they fought to clear their name and find the real killer.
Eventually, Boulder district attorney’s office completely cleared the Ramseys of any wrongdoing in their daughter’s slaying, and issued an apology in 2008.
Since then, John Ramsey has kept the memory of his daughter alive, despite losing his reputation, a thriving business, and Patsy to ovarian cancer in 2006.
Mr Ramsey eventually found happiness through his relationship with fashion designer Jan Rousseaux, who he married at a private ceremony in Charlevoix, Michigan, last July.
But he hangs on to hope his daughter’s killer will be found and meet justice, and says he still ‘would like to know’ who is responsible.
‘Everybody has a burden, and I wanted to tell people it doesn’t last forever,’ he said. ‘There is light at the end of the tunnel.’


SOCIOLOGY: DEVIANCE AND CRIME

$
0
0

What’s the Big Deal About Deviance?
As was mentioned in the culture chapter a Norm is a set of expected behaviors for a given role and social status. In most societies, the majority of people conform to the most important norms most of the time. For example, wearing casual clothes to class is normal on many campuses. Attending class in your European Bikini might not be normal for some. Yet, I witnessed this back in 1982 as a student in the newly accredited West Georgia University. Many of the female students wore Bikinis to classes. It was a striking departure from what I had experienced while in high school. But, I wondered back then if swimsuits were in fact deviant given that so many students at WGU wore them to class. Deviance is not as easily defined and established as some might think (especially if you are sensitive to cultural relativism and ethnocentrism). Deviance is a violation of norms or rules of behavior that are typically outside of the norms.
A typical dictionary definition of deviance sounds something like this: “one that does not conform to the norm;” “one who behaves in sharply different ways from customs;” or “one who ignores the common and behaves in unique ways.” A thesaurus might also list: “abnormal; aberration, anomaly, weird, irregular, and even unnatural” as similarly related words. Most references attest to the nature of deviance as being something that violates normal behaviors, thoughts, or actions. But, is deviance weird/cool, positive/negative, desirable/undesirable, or good/bad?

For Sociologists the answer is found by considering exactly who has the power and authority to define the behavior as being normal or deviant. Throughout the history if the United States governments, religions, education, media , and family types have influenced and shaped what is considered “normal” or “deviant” on subjects as insignificant as swimsuits on beaches and as significant as women having the same rights that men have. You see, deviance is considered at both of C. Wright Mills’ larger social and personal levels.

A personal level example might be considered with the swimsuit on campus issue. Students back then did not need to look at university, governmental, or media for approval on how they dressed for class. They typically considered a source much more valuable to teenagers and young adults—their peers. Friends who also wear swimsuits to class may have defined the swim suit issue as being normal among students who were their friends, yet deviant among students who run in different crowds. Since they value their own peer evaluations the most they defer to peer-based norms.

But, would it be acceptable to wear nothing at all to class? On Wikipedia there is an interesting article about Andrew Martinez who attended naked at Berkley for a few years. Berkley is considered to be a very liberal campus in comparison to most US campuses. A controversy developed and eventually his nakedness came before the university leaders and the City of Berkley leaders (he often walked about town naked). He was eventually asked to leave Berkley and both the City and University of Berkley passed anti-nudity laws and policies to prevent nudity (taken from Internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Martinez 15 September, 2008). Martinez would often find himself being labeled “deviant” throughout the remainder of his life(he died in jail May 18 2006 from an apparent suicide).

Can Deviance Be Functional?
Let’s pause here to consider Emile Durkheim’s observations about deviance (original text from “The Division of Labour in Society” 1893).Durkheim argued that deviance, especially extreme forms are functional in that they challenge and offend the established norms in the larger collective conscience. In other words extreme deviance pushes things enough to make members of society reconsider why they even consider some behaviors as being deviant. Building on this idea, Functionalists often argue that: deviance reaffirms norms when the deviants are punished; deviance promotes solidarity among those who support and those who oppose the deviance; deviance provides a clear contrasting point of comparison for society’s members; and deviance often stimulates social change.

In Martinez’s naked guy case, both the City and University had to take a serious look at why and how they defined public nudity and which formal norms they would develop to support their position. Similar formal evaluations of deviance occurred after Dr “Death” Kevorkian assisted severely ill persons in taking their own lives; after September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the US (Twin Towers, Pentagon, and flight crash in Pennsylvania) killed about 3,000 people; and more recently after major US corporations which have been mismanaged and have deeply shaken markets, investments, and economic stability. Extreme deviance does make us consider “normal” behavior on the personal and larger social level.

As a sociologist, you should strive for an objective stance when studying deviance. It take practice but is truly rewarding because of the clarity it brings to your evaluation. It’s like you try to see society and people the same way statisticians see things. Look at the diagram below. Here you see a distribution of numbers. From a statistical point of view you can see that the mean lowest score is 0, the mean is 80, and the highest score is 100. Is a mean of 80 good or desirable? That depends on what these scores represent. If these are test scores from your first sociology test then a mean of 80 indicates that most students did well on the test. The grey area of the diagram indicates the First Standard Deviation is the area in the distribution where about two-thirds of the scores fall (1/3 above and 1/3 below the mean).
A mean of 80 indicates that about two-thirds of the other scores where between 70 and 90 in this distribution. By the way, even though they are not indicated in the diagram, the Second Standard Deviation has the next 28 percent of the scores (13.6% above and 13.6% below); the Third Standard Deviation has the next 4 percent (2.1% above and below); and the Fourth Standard Deviation has the last 0.2 percent (0.1% above and below). You’ll learn more about deviations when you take your statistics classes.

Back to the test scores, a higher score way above the mean is good and desirable to most students. If the highest student score was 99 and the lowest was 3, both would statistically be considered deviant scores. In a sense, you’d want to deviate as high above the mean as possible, right?

But, what if this distribution was not an indicat8ion of test scores, but rather the frequency of times potential roommates stole food from the private stashes of previous roommates? You’d clearly want a score closer to 0 than 80. Likewise, what if this distribution was an indication of how many times your boyfriend or girlfriend flirted with others while they were dating you? Again 0 would be good and desirable. Finally, what if this distribution indicated the number of times during a student’s college career that they performed a “random act of senseless kindness” for others? I hope the point makes sense—the value placed upon the deviance depends greatly on how the deviance conforms to or violates the norms of the community and society you live in.

Let’s consider a sensitive and sometimes controversial issue — Homosexuality, or a sexual preference for persons of the same sex. I often ask my student to consider this simple question, “is homosexuality deviant or normal?” I am surprised at how passionate my students argue that it is normal or that it is deviant. Eventually when the discussion runs out of energy a student will ask me what I think. I answer like this. National studies indicate that less than 5 percent of the United States population considers itself to be exclusively homosexual.

“Does that make it more or less common and therefore more or less deviant?” I ask.

“It’s less common,” they reply.

“Yet, every society in the history of the world has typically had homosexuality among its members. That includes almost all societies with recorded histories and almost every society in the world today,” I continue. “Is it common or uncommon, deviant or normal?”

“Common and normal,” they reply. “But, how can something be deviant and normal at the same time?”

The answer is found in the complexity of modern societies. Not all members of society agree on the same issue in the same way. We rarely have total agreement on what’s normal. In the US we have over 300 million people, hundreds of religions, thousands of voluntary organizations, thousands of political interest groups, and thousands of personal interest groups, many of which are in striking opposition to other groups (IE: White supremacists vs. Nation of Islam).

Many sociologists have argued that it is normal to have deviance in a healthy society. If you regard homosexuality as being normal or deviant, as a sociologist you can step into a more objective role and understand the larger social level of consideration. It allows you to become more of an analyst and less of an advocate when understanding deviance. To build upon this idea, let’s consider how sociologists strive for objectivity when considering cross-cultural issues of deviance. Remember that ethnocentrism tends to burn cross-cultural bridges while cultural relativism tends to build them. Can we study deviance without becoming ethnocentric? Absolutely!

Deviance tends to vary on three major levels: across time; across cultures, and from group to group. When considering deviance we must realize that collectively people experience social levels of shifting values. In one example, contrast the I Love Lucy show which aired in the 1950’s to the Sex and The City show which aired 1988-2004. As a child I wondered how Little Ricky was born given that Lucy and her real-life and TV-life husband, Dezi slept in different beds on the TV show. Their kisses were controversial to some at the time.

Today, Sex and the City is an in-depth story line which follows the sexuality of four New York City women. As you read in the culture chapter, values shape norms, which in turn shape morés and folkways, which in turn shape laws. As values shift and change over time, so eventually do laws. Check out a fun Website called http://www.dumblaws.com/ to see if your home state had some rather bizarre laws (values) back in the day.

How Does Culture Influence Deviance?
Deviance varies between cultures because values vary between cultures. In Washington D.C. there is a non-profit research organization that performs international studies (see http://pewglobal.org/about/). On their Website they discuss their mission statement and organizational purpose.

“The project provides to journalists, academics, policymakers and the public a unique, comprehensive, internationally comparable series of surveys. Since its inception in 2001, the Pew Global Attitudes Project has released 21 major reports, as well as numerous commentaries and other releases, on topics including attitudes toward the U.S. and American foreign policy, globalization, terrorism, and democratization (taken from Internet 16 September, 2008).”
One such study is called the “Pew Global Attitudes Project” which is a series of worldwide public opinion surveys that encompasses a broad array of subjects ranging from people’s assessments of their own lives to their views about the current state of the world and important issues of the day. More than 175,000 interviews in 54 countries have been conducted as part of the project’s work.”

Based on 91,000 of these surveys from 50 different countries, Kohut and Stokes (2007) wrote an insightful book comparing US to other cultures and explaining how we are perceived. America Against the World: How We are Different and Why We Are Disliked (Holt Publishing, 2007). These authors talk about the perception of non-Americans about the United States. In this book American values, culture, economic influence, and military activities have lead to a singular notion about what America does to the world. Many have misguided ideas from TV and news reports. Most see the need for another superpower to keep the US in check. In sum, the average non-American views Americans much differently from how they view themselves.

How might a value compare between countries of the world? Pew also studied the concept of trust between countries and found that Eastern Europe has lower levels of Trust than did the US when asked “Most People in Society are Trustworthy”.

Among the 47 countries included in this survey, wars, famine, economic downturns, street and organized crime, and other local social influences have contributed to higher or lower levels of trust over time.

Values also vary between groups (group to group). When I was a research professor at Case Western Reserve University, I arranged for a former Folks gang member to come and speak to my Social Problems class. He was a larger man, 6 foot 3, about 275 pounds, and also a black belt in martial arts. He explained that when he was much younger he had to go through an initiation ritual called a beat down in order to be admitted to the gang. He eventually converted to Christianity and chose to leave the gang (he qualified his comments by saying “no one ever leaves the gang”). Typically to go on an inactive status with the gang there is another beat down. Because of his stature and fighting skills it was decided to forego his beat down for the overall benefit of everyone involved. The point of this story is that in most social groups a beat down would be considered deviant. In a gang it’s very much normal. Yet, in this situation, not beating him down was deviant within his gang, yet a wise choice.

Not only do values vary over time, between cultures, and between groups, it also varies a great deal between individuals. If you interviewed 11 people you personally know and asked them when abortion should be available to American women, you’d probably find some very strong opinions that change from person to person. If you polled the entire country, as did CBS and the New York Times in 2003, you would begin to see patterns that gave you a global understanding of US attitudes about abortion. In the CBS and NYT survey only 1 in 4 felt that abortion should not be permitted under any circumstances (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_Opinion Taken 17 September, 2008 from “Abortion in the United States”). These trends are very similar across political parties and gender.

But how does one person feel about abortion? It can be best understood by looking at one of three perspectives that typically frame an individual’s perspective on an issue.

The Absolutist Perspective claims that deviance resides in the very nature of an act and is wrong at all times and in all places.

The Normative Perspective claims that deviance is only a violation of a specific group’s or society’s rules at a specific point in time.

The Reactive Perspective claims that behavior does not become deviant unless it is disapproved of by those in authority (laws).

For more, Google “Moral Relativism.”

Perspectives on Deviance
An absolutists would probably fall among the 1 in 4 who feel that abortion is always wrong, because it is an unacceptable act. A normative individual would consider the circumstances (rape, incest, diagnoses, or health of mother) while a reactive would consider the legality of abortion.

In every society when deviance is considered it is most often controlled. Social Control is formal and informal attempts at enforcing norms. There are a few basic concepts that help to understand social control. The Pluralistic Theory of Social Control claims that society is made up of many competing groups whose diverse interests are continuously balanced. Social Order is the customary and typical social arrangements which society’s members use to base their daily lives on. Control is easier if attachments, commitment, involvement, and beliefs are stronger.

Attachments: strong social mutual bonds that encourage society’s members to conform
Commitment: the stronger our loyalty to legitimate opportunity, the greater the advantages of conforming
Involvement: the more a person participates in legitimate activities, the greater the inhibition towards deviance
Belief: strong understanding in values of conventional morality promote conformity
Society’s members use informal and formal sanctions to reinforce control efforts. Negative Sanctions are punishments or negative reactions toward deviance. Positive Sanctions are rewards for conforming behavior.
Finally one of the harshest forms of controls comes when intense labels are given to a person because of their actions. A Stigma is an attribute which is deeply discrediting and that reduces the person from a whole and usual person to a tainted or discredited one. I know of an individual who was in prison for 5 years, falsely incarcerated for child molestation and even captured on Americas Most Wanted. His charge was child abuse. Eventually he was acquitted of the charge and awarded 16 million dollars in damages for having his civil rights violated when it was revealed that his former wife and the investigating detective had an affair, eventually married, and perhaps fabricated the entire case together (see http://www.innocenceprojectmidwest.org/index.php or Google Free Ted White). A charge and conviction of child abuse are very permanent and harsh stigmas to deal with, even if you are exonerated later on.

In sum, deviance is a violation of a norm, simply not behaving in expected ways given the social circumstances. But what is the difference in conformity, crime, deviance, and both deviance and crime combined?

When an actor complies with group norms and the law it’s called Conformity, or an adherence to the normative and legal standards of a group in society. An example might be the clothes you wore to class today—legal and normal. When an actor violates group norms but complies with the law, it is deviance. An example might be if you wore your Halloween costume to class…in July. If an actor complies with group norms yet breaks the law, it’s called crime. Crime is behavior which violates laws and to which governments can apply negative sanctions. An example of this might be when you drove 10 miles over the speed limit just to avoid being rear-ended on the freeway today. If everybody speeds and you do too, it’s still “normal crime.” Over–reporting deductions and under-reporting income is also “normal crime.” Finally, if the actor violates norms and breaks the law, then it’s Deviant and Criminal behavior. An example might be when our neighbor in a middle class neighborhood started a meth lab and got busted while their 2 children watched, crying on the porch (this happened to our across-the-street neighbors during the mid-1990s).

Like deviance, crime is often found in every society. Why? Functionalist point out that: crime exist because members of society find it very difficult to reach total agreement on rules of behavior; no society can force total conformity to its rules or laws; people are normative, we continuously categorize behaviors into “right” or “wrong”; crime/deviance function as a warning light indicating an area that needs attention or consideration; crime/deviance often brings about solidarity or togetherness in society ; and there is a vital relationship between crime/deviance and societal progress. As mentioned, deviants and criminals make us reassess our values and make new rules and laws (Google search Emile Durkheim or Robert K. Merton with functionality of deviance).

Robert Merton was a Functionalist who studied why people conform or deviate (see Merton, Robert K. (1938). “Social Structure and Anomie”, American Sociological Review, Vol 3 No 5, October 1938). Using Durkheim’s concept of anomie (remember that Anomie is a state of social normlessness which occurs when our lives or society has vague norms). Merton devised a theory of deviance that brings in the concept of materialism. The average American sees the “American Dream” as a goal of monetary success. They typically desire to have the dream but realize that they often lack the means to attain it. How do they respond to this goal—means gap? Merton claimed in 1 of 5 ways.

1. Conformity
people live with what they have and get by (they accept and pursue their goals with socially accepted means—Average US Citizen)
2. Innovation
people commit crime to attain their goals (they accept and pursue their goals by replacing legitimate with deviant/criminal means to attain them—Criminals)
3. Ritualism
people try but fail and lower their goals (they appear to pursue goals but confuse means and goal—Someone who focuses on following rules, fitting in, or conforming instead of attaining the dream)
4. Retreatism
people withdraw and reject most of the goals (they reject and don’t pursue their goals—Street people, bag ladies, and hoboes)
5. Rebellion
people reject both the goals and the means to attain them (They reject socially approved goals and replace with deviant goals—Terrorists and freedom fighters)

Theories of Deviance and Crime
Conflict theories of deviance and criminality of course focus on issues of power and powerlessness. It’s about who has the power and how they attempt to force their values and rules upon those who don’t have it. The wealthier, more educated, and elite of society typically have the most power. The Power Elite are the political, corporate, and military leaders of a society are uniquely positioned to commit Elite Crimes, or crimes of insider nature that typically are difficult to punish and have broad social consequences upon the masses. A few recent examples of this might include corporate mismanagement, embezzlement, and fraud which lead to massive Federal bailouts and prosecutions.

Another key conflict issue in studying crime is the disproportionately high level of non-whites who ended up among the 2006 1,570,861 incarcerated members of society (that’s about 1 in 300 for the US) about 35 percent are White (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf “Prisoners in the United States 2006” taken 17 September, 2008).

Among Symbolic Interactionists who study crime and deviance a few core theoretical approaches are used. The Labeling Theory claims that the labels people are given affect their perceptions and channel their behaviors into deviance or conformity. Perhaps people grow up and self-fulfill the expectations others have for them…they grow down to low expectations. Edward Lemert studied deviant identity formation and identified Primary Deviance (when an individual violates a norm), becomes identified by others as being deviant while maintaining a self-definition of being a conformist; and Secondary Deviance – when the individual internalizes the deviant identity others have placed upon him/her. In the Movie, Boyz n the Hood (1991 film directed by John Singleton), Cuba Gooding Jr.’s character, Tre is faced with a tremendous amount of pressure when his best friend is gunned down by street gang members and he has a profound urge to retaliate. Tre is deeply supported by his father who helps him to reject both the opportunity and label of street thug and to remember his own potential. This film was nominated for an Academy Award and was listed on the National Film Registry.

One final consideration is when someone is given a Master Status, or a social position that is so intense it becomes the primary characteristic of the individual (ex-con, gang banger, etc.). Understanding how powerful a master status can be as a labeling influence helps to understand why so many criminals reoffend and end up incarcerated again. Recidivism is being arrested again after having served a sentence for another crime. Recidivism rates indicate that the majority of US prisoners have been in prison before (perhaps 60-80% depending on the studies and how they were taken).

Social Learning is an approach that studies how people learn behaviors through interactions with others. In studying crime Edwin Sutherland taught the concept of Differential Association, or the process of learning deviance from others in your close relationships who provide role models of and opportunities for deviance. There’s a useful formula to remember:

I used this theory to understand the neighbors who started the Meth lab. They were young, high school drop outs who had: a sports boat, Ski Doos, jet skis, new truck and car, all new furniture. The only catch is that his brother’s best friend had them employed in the Meth business. Both men served time in prison, but the wife who was expecting their next child was not charged. It was a group of family and friends who saw criminal behavior as being worth the risks and acceptable given the tough economy.

During the 1800’s various scientists attempted to explain deviant and criminal behavior by searching for common patterns of shapes and bumps on the skull. Phrenology is an outdated scientific approach of studying the shape and characteristics of the skull. Of course the scientific data did not support the assumptions of phrenology. Other biological attempts have included body shape and size, racial-group membership, and most recently genetic factors. To date no branch of science has been able to identify universal biological predictors of unwanted behavior.

There are three classifications that need to be made about crime types: White-Collar Crimes are crimes committed by persons of respectable and high social status committed in the course of their occupations. These types of crime are rampant and increasing, and they are the underlying cause of the economic crises of the years 1998-present. In white-collar crime, crimes are committed in the elite suites of corporate offices. These could include insider trading, safety violations where employees are injured or killed, environmental destruction, deception and fraud, and inappropriate use of corporate funds. To commit a white-collar offense one would have to be very well educated, wealthy, and somewhat powerful—a position most in society cannot claim for themselves. When caught, laws (which were created by society’s elite) rarely punish the elite criminal with the same type of justice street criminals face. One inmate said, “I walk into a bank with a gun and get 50 years. I go to college and do my stealing using a computer or some secret technique that I can’t be caught with, I get 15 months in a cushy security prison with nuptial visitation rights (my interview with ex-con who spoke to my Introduction to Sociology students).

Street Crimes are crimes committed by average persons against members, groups, and organizations. Hate Crimes are acts of racial, religious, anti-immigration, sexual orientation, gender, and disability motivated violence. Street crimes typically fall into a few sub-categories—misdemeanors tend to be less severe and have less-severe punishments associated with them; felonies tend to be very serious and often change the standing of a citizen, permanently denying rights such as voting, owning a gun, and having social interactions with other felons. The Federal Bureau of Investigations classifies two types of crimes: Violent and Property. Violent crimes include: forcible rape, murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. In 2007 there were 1,408,377 violent crimes reported to police or 467 crimes/100,000 population. Property crimes include: burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, shoplifting, and vandalism.

Hate crimes have become much more concerning in the US over the last decade. These numbers give the impression that not many occur each year, but the FBI emphasizes that not all hate crimes are reported to police agencies and therefore are excluded in statistics. Race, religion, and sexual orientation continue to dominate the reported hate crime categories.

Finally a word about Organized Crime, or crime perpetrated by covert organizations which are extremely secretive and organized, devoted to criminal activity. The core principle behind organized crime venture is the pursuit of wealth using socially approved and disapproved of means, that allow murder, rape, extortion, assault, street, White-collar, and even hate crime activities if profitable. Organized crime includes: 1) a complex hierarchy; 2) territorial division of authority and practice; 3) tendency towards violence at any degree; and 4) capacity to corrupt public officials at any level of government. The reason organized crime works so well is that it typically: 1) is highly organized; 2) deals with services in high demand; 3) involves lots of political corruption; 4) very little organized opposition; and 5) uses lots of violence and intimidation. Organized crime has become rooted on every continent and in almost every country of the world. It undermined the former USSR; it brought the world super power to its knees and left only a skeleton of a powerful nation in the current Russian Federation.

Organized crime-type of economic pillaging is developing dramatically with the mainstream US economy. Unlike formally organized crime types such as Mafia, national Biker gangs, yakuza, Dugan Hands Bank, Triads, etc. current organized crime is more “mom and pop” small time operator such as Madoff and others like him that, even though small, can render tremendous devastation to a national economic system – Paul Cheney


THE CAGING OF AMERICA

$
0
0

January 30 2012

Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.—more than were in Stalin’s gulags.

A prison is a trap for catching time. Good reporting appears often about the inner life of the American prison, but the catch is that American prison life is mostly undramatic—the reported stories fail to grab us, because, for the most part, nothing happens. One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich is all you need to know about Ivan Denisovich, because the idea that anyone could live for a minute in such circumstances seems impossible; one day in the life of an American prison means much less, because the force of it is that one day typically stretches out for decades. It isn’t the horror of the time at hand but the unimaginable sameness of the time ahead that makes prisons unendurable for their inmates. The inmates on death row in Texas are called men in “timeless time,” because they alone aren’t serving time: they aren’t waiting out five years or a decade or a lifetime. The basic reality of American prisons is not that of the lock and key but that of the lock and clock.

That’s why no one who has been inside a prison, if only for a day, can ever forget the feeling. Time stops. A note of attenuated panic, of watchful paranoia—anxiety and boredom and fear mixed into a kind of enveloping fog, covering the guards as much as the guarded. “Sometimes I think this whole world is one big prison yard, / Some of us are prisoners, some of us are guards,” Dylan sings, and while it isn’t strictly true—just ask the prisoners—it contains a truth: the guards are doing time, too. As a smart man once wrote after being locked up, the thing about jail is that there are bars on the windows and they won’t let you out. This simple truth governs all the others. What prisoners try to convey to the free is how the presence of time as something being done to you, instead of something you do things with, alters the mind at every moment. For American prisoners, huge numbers of whom are serving sentences much longer than those given for similar crimes anywhere else in the civilized world—Texas alone has sentenced more than four hundred teen-agers to life imprisonment—time becomes in every sense this thing you serve.

For most privileged, professional people, the experience of confinement is a mere brush, encountered after a kid’s arrest, say. For a great many poor people in America, particularly poor black men, prison is a destination that braids through an ordinary life, much as high school and college do for rich white ones. More than half of all black men without a high-school diploma go to prison at some time in their lives. Mass incarceration on a scale almost unexampled in human history is a fundamental fact of our country today—perhaps the fundamental fact, as slavery was the fundamental fact of 1850. In truth, there are more black men in the grip of the criminal-justice system—in prison, on probation, or on parole—than were in slavery then. Over all, there are now more people under “correctional supervision” in America—more than six million—than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height. That city of the confined and the controlled, Lockuptown, is now the second largest in the United States.

The accelerating rate of incarceration over the past few decades is just as startling as the number of people jailed: in 1980, there were about two hundred and twenty people incarcerated for every hundred thousand Americans; by 2010, the number had more than tripled, to seven hundred and thirty-one. No other country even approaches that. In the past two decades, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education. Ours is, bottom to top, a “carceral state,” in the flat verdict of Conrad Black, the former conservative press lord and newly minted reformer, who right now finds himself imprisoned in Florida, thereby adding a new twist to an old joke: A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged; a liberal is a conservative who’s been indicted; and a passionate prison reformer is a conservative who’s in one.

The scale and the brutality of our prisons are the moral scandal of American life. Every day, at least fifty thousand men—a full house at Yankee Stadium—wake in solitary confinement, often in “supermax” prisons or prison wings, in which men are locked in small cells, where they see no one, cannot freely read and write, and are allowed out just once a day for an hour’s solo “exercise.” (Lock yourself in your bathroom and then imagine you have to stay there for the next ten years, and you will have some sense of the experience.) Prison rape is so endemic—more than seventy thousand prisoners are raped each year—that it is routinely held out as a threat, part of the punishment to be expected. The subject is standard fodder for comedy, and an uncoöperative suspect being threatened with rape in prison is now represented, every night on television, as an ordinary and rather lovable bit of policing. The normalization of prison rape—like eighteenth-century japery about watching men struggle as they die on the gallows—will surely strike our descendants as chillingly sadistic, incomprehensible on the part of people who thought themselves civilized. Though we avoid looking directly at prisons, they seep obliquely into our fashions and manners. Wealthy white teen-agers in baggy jeans and laceless shoes and multiple tattoos show, unconsciously, the reality of incarceration that acts as a hidden foundation for the country.

How did we get here? How is it that our civilization, which rejects hanging and flogging and disembowelling, came to believe that caging vast numbers of people for decades is an acceptably humane sanction? There’s a fairly large recent scholarly literature on the history and sociology of crime and punishment, and it tends to trace the American zeal for punishment back to the nineteenth century, apportioning blame in two directions. There’s an essentially Northern explanation, focussing on the inheritance of the notorious Eastern State Penitentiary, in Philadelphia, and its “reformist” tradition; and a Southern explanation, which sees the prison system as essentially a slave plantation continued by other means. Robert Perkinson, the author of the Southern revisionist tract “Texas Tough: The Rise of America’s Prison Empire,” traces two ancestral lines, “from the North, the birthplace of rehabilitative penology, to the South, the fountainhead of subjugationist discipline.” In other words, there’s the scientific taste for reducing men to numbers and the slave owners’ urge to reduce blacks to brutes.

William J. Stuntz, a professor at Harvard Law School who died shortly before his masterwork, “The Collapse of American Criminal Justice,” was published, last fall, is the most forceful advocate for the view that the scandal of our prisons derives from the Enlightenment-era, “procedural” nature of American justice. He runs through the immediate causes of the incarceration epidemic: the growth of post-Rockefeller drug laws, which punished minor drug offenses with major prison time; “zero tolerance” policing, which added to the group; mandatory-sentencing laws, which prevented judges from exercising judgment. But his search for the ultimate cause leads deeper, all the way to the Bill of Rights. In a society where Constitution worship is still a requisite on right and left alike, Stuntz startlingly suggests that the Bill of Rights is a terrible document with which to start a justice system—much inferior to the exactly contemporary French Declaration of the Rights of Man, which Jefferson, he points out, may have helped shape while his protégé Madison was writing ours.

The trouble with the Bill of Rights, he argues, is that it emphasizes process and procedure rather than principles. The Declaration of the Rights of Man says, Be just! The Bill of Rights says, Be fair! Instead of announcing general principles—no one should be accused of something that wasn’t a crime when he did it; cruel punishments are always wrong; the goal of justice is, above all, that justice be done—it talks procedurally. You can’t search someone without a reason; you can’t accuse him without allowing him to see the evidence; and so on. This emphasis, Stuntz thinks, has led to the current mess, where accused criminals get laboriously articulated protection against procedural errors and no protection at all against outrageous and obvious violations of simple justice. You can get off if the cops looked in the wrong car with the wrong warrant when they found your joint, but you have no recourse if owning the joint gets you locked up for life. You may be spared the death penalty if you can show a problem with your appointed defender, but it is much harder if there is merely enormous accumulated evidence that you weren’t guilty in the first place and the jury got it wrong. Even clauses that Americans are taught to revere are, Stuntz maintains, unworthy of reverence: the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” was designed to protect cruel punishments—flogging and branding—that were not at that time unusual.

The obsession with due process and the cult of brutal prisons, the argument goes, share an essential impersonality. The more professionalized and procedural a system is, the more insulated we become from its real effects on real people. That’s why America is famous both for its process-driven judicial system (“The bastard got off on a technicality,” the cop-show detective fumes) and for the harshness and inhumanity of its prisons. Though all industrialized societies started sending more people to prison and fewer to the gallows in the eighteenth century, it was in Enlightenment-inspired America that the taste for long-term, profoundly depersonalized punishment became most aggravated. The inhumanity of American prisons was as much a theme for Dickens, visiting America in 1842, as the cynicism of American lawyers. His shock when he saw the Eastern State Penitentiary, in Philadelphia—a “model” prison, at the time the most expensive public building ever constructed in the country, where every prisoner was kept in silent, separate confinement—still resonates:

I believe that very few men are capable of estimating the immense amount of torture and agony which this dreadful punishment, prolonged for years, inflicts upon the sufferers. . . . I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain, to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body: and because its ghastly signs and tokens are not so palpable to the eye and sense of touch as scars upon the flesh; because its wounds are not upon the surface, and it extorts few cries that human ears can hear; therefore I the more denounce it, as a secret punishment which slumbering humanity is not roused up to stay.

Not roused up to stay—that was the point. Once the procedure ends, the penalty begins, and, as long as the cruelty is routine, our civil responsibility toward the punished is over. We lock men up and forget about their existence. For Dickens, even the corrupt but communal debtors’ prisons of old London were better than this. “Don’t take it personally!”—that remains the slogan above the gate to the American prison Inferno. Nor is this merely a historian’s vision. Conrad Black, at the high end, has a scary and persuasive picture of how his counsel, the judge, and the prosecutors all merrily congratulated each other on their combined professional excellence just before sending him off to the hoosegow for several years. If a millionaire feels that way, imagine how the ordinary culprit must feel.

In place of abstraction, Stuntz argues for the saving grace of humane discretion. Basically, he thinks, we should go into court with an understanding of what a crime is and what justice is like, and then let common sense and compassion and specific circumstance take over. There’s a lovely scene in “The Castle,” the Australian movie about a family fighting eminent-domain eviction, where its hapless lawyer, asked in court to point to the specific part of the Australian constitution that the eviction violates, says desperately, “It’s . . . just the vibe of the thing.” For Stuntz, justice ought to be just the vibe of the thing—not one procedural error caught or one fact worked around. The criminal law should once again be more like the common law, with judges and juries not merely finding fact but making law on the basis of universal principles of fairness, circumstance, and seriousness, and crafting penalties to the exigencies of the crime.

The other argument—the Southern argument—is that this story puts too bright a face on the truth. The reality of American prisons, this argument runs, has nothing to do with the knots of procedural justice or the perversions of Enlightenment-era ideals. Prisons today operate less in the rehabilitative mode of the Northern reformers “than in a retributive mode that has long been practiced and promoted in the South,” Perkinson, an American-studies professor, writes. “American prisons trace their lineage not only back to Pennsylvania penitentiaries but to Texas slave plantations.” White supremacy is the real principle, this thesis holds, and racial domination the real end. In response to the apparent triumphs of the sixties, mass imprisonment became a way of reimposing Jim Crow. Blacks are now incarcerated seven times as often as whites. “The system of mass incarceration works to trap African Americans in a virtual (and literal) cage,” the legal scholar Michelle Alexander writes. Young black men pass quickly from a period of police harassment into a period of “formal control” (i.e., actual imprisonment) and then are doomed for life to a system of “invisible control.” Prevented from voting, legally discriminated against for the rest of their lives, most will cycle back through the prison system. The system, in this view, is not really broken; it is doing what it was designed to do. Alexander’s grim conclusion: “If mass incarceration is considered as a system of social control—specifically, racial control—then the system is a fantastic success.”

Northern impersonality and Southern revenge converge on a common American theme: a growing number of American prisons are now contracted out as for-profit businesses to for-profit companies. The companies are paid by the state, and their profit depends on spending as little as possible on the prisoners and the prisons. It’s hard to imagine any greater disconnect between public good and private profit: the interest of private prisons lies not in the obvious social good of having the minimum necessary number of inmates but in having as many as possible, housed as cheaply as possible. No more chilling document exists in recent American life than the 2005 annual report of the biggest of these firms, the Corrections Corporation of America. Here the company (which spends millions lobbying legislators) is obliged to caution its investors about the risk that somehow, somewhere, someone might turn off the spigot of convicted men:

Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities. . . . The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them.

Brecht could hardly have imagined such a document: a capitalist enterprise that feeds on the misery of man trying as hard as it can to be sure that nothing is done to decrease that misery.

Yet a spectre haunts all these accounts, North and South, whether process gone mad or penal colony writ large. It is that the epidemic of imprisonment seems to track the dramatic decline in crime over the same period. The more bad guys there are in prison, it appears, the less crime there has been in the streets. The real background to the prison boom, which shows up only sporadically in the prison literature, is the crime wave that preceded and overlapped it.

For those too young to recall the big-city crime wave of the sixties and seventies, it may seem like mere bogeyman history. For those whose entire childhood and adolescence were set against it, it is the crucial trauma in recent American life and explains much else that happened in the same period. It was the condition of the Upper West Side of Manhattan under liberal rule, far more than what had happened to Eastern Europe under socialism, that made neo-con polemics look persuasive. There really was, as Stuntz himself says, a liberal consensus on crime (“Wherever the line is between a merciful justice system and one that abandons all serious effort at crime control, the nation had crossed it”), and it really did have bad effects.

Yet if, in 1980, someone had predicted that by 2012 New York City would have a crime rate so low that violent crime would have largely disappeared as a subject of conversation, he would have seemed not so much hopeful as crazy. Thirty years ago, crime was supposed to be a permanent feature of the city, produced by an alienated underclass of super-predators; now it isn’t. Something good happened to change it, and you might have supposed that the change would be an opportunity for celebration and optimism. Instead, we mostly content ourselves with grudging and sardonic references to the silly side of gentrification, along with a few all-purpose explanations, like broken-window policing. This is a general human truth: things that work interest us less than things that don’t.

So what is the relation between mass incarceration and the decrease in crime? Certainly, in the nineteen-seventies and eighties, many experts became persuaded that there was no way to make bad people better; all you could do was warehouse them, for longer or shorter periods. The best research seemed to show, depressingly, that nothing works—that rehabilitation was a ruse. Then, in 1983, inmates at the maximum-security federal prison in Marion, Illinois, murdered two guards. Inmates had been (very occasionally) killing guards for a long time, but the timing of the murders, and the fact that they took place in a climate already prepared to believe that even ordinary humanity was wasted on the criminal classes, meant that the entire prison was put on permanent lockdown. A century and a half after absolute solitary first appeared in American prisons, it was reintroduced. Those terrible numbers began to grow.

And then, a decade later, crime started falling: across the country by a standard measure of about forty per cent; in New York City by as much as eighty per cent. By 2010, the crime rate in New York had seen its greatest decline since the Second World War; in 2002, there were fewer murders in Manhattan than there had been in any year since 1900. In social science, a cause sought is usually a muddle found; in life as we experience it, a crisis resolved is causality established. If a pill cures a headache, we do not ask too often if the headache might have gone away by itself.

All this ought to make the publication of Franklin E. Zimring’s new book, “The City That Became Safe,” a very big event. Zimring, a criminologist at Berkeley Law, has spent years crunching the numbers of what happened in New York in the context of what happened in the rest of America. One thing he teaches us is how little we know. The forty per cent drop across the continent—indeed, there was a decline throughout the Western world— took place for reasons that are as mysterious in suburban Ottawa as they are in the South Bronx. Zimring shows that the usual explanations—including demographic shifts—simply can’t account for what must be accounted for. This makes the international decline look slightly eerie: blackbirds drop from the sky, plagues slacken and end, and there seems no absolute reason that societies leap from one state to another over time. Trends and fashions and fads and pure contingencies happen in other parts of our social existence; it may be that there are fashions and cycles in criminal behavior, too, for reasons that are just as arbitrary.

But the additional forty per cent drop in crime that seems peculiar to New York finally succumbs to Zimring’s analysis. The change didn’t come from resolving the deep pathologies that the right fixated on—from jailing super predators, driving down the number of unwed mothers, altering welfare culture. Nor were there cures for the underlying causes pointed to by the left: injustice, discrimination, poverty. Nor were there any “Presto!” effects arising from secret patterns of increased abortions or the like. The city didn’t get much richer; it didn’t get much poorer. There was no significant change in the ethnic makeup or the average wealth or educational levels of New Yorkers as violent crime more or less vanished. “Broken windows” or “turnstile jumping” policing, that is, cracking down on small visible offenses in order to create an atmosphere that refused to license crime, seems to have had a negligible effect; there was, Zimring writes, a great difference between the slogans and the substance of the time. (Arrests for “visible” nonviolent crime—e.g., street prostitution and public gambling—mostly went down through the period.)

Instead, small acts of social engineering, designed simply to stop crimes from happening, helped stop crime. In the nineties, the N.Y.P.D. began to control crime not by fighting minor crimes in safe places but by putting lots of cops in places where lots of crimes happened—“hot-spot policing.” The cops also began an aggressive, controversial program of “stop and frisk”—“designed to catch the sharks, not the dolphins,” as Jack Maple, one of its originators, described it—that involved what’s called pejoratively “profiling.” This was not so much racial, since in any given neighborhood all the suspects were likely to be of the same race or color, as social, involving the thousand small clues that policemen recognized already. Minority communities, Zimring emphasizes, paid a disproportionate price in kids stopped and frisked, and detained, but they also earned a disproportionate gain in crime reduced. “The poor pay more and get more” is Zimring’s way of putting it. He believes that a “light” program of stop-and-frisk could be less alienating and just as effective, and that by bringing down urban crime stop-and-frisk had the net effect of greatly reducing the number of poor minority kids in prison for long stretches.

Zimring insists, plausibly, that he is offering a radical and optimistic rewriting of theories of what crime is and where criminals are, not least because it disconnects crime and minorities. “In 1961, twenty six percent of New York City’s population was minority African American or Hispanic. Now, half of New York’s population is—and what that does in an enormously hopeful way is to destroy the rude assumptions of supply side criminology,” he says. By “supply side criminology,” he means the conservative theory of crime that claimed that social circumstances produced a certain net amount of crime waiting to be expressed; if you stopped it here, it broke out there. The only way to stop crime was to lock up all the potential criminals. In truth, criminal activity seems like most other human choices—a question of contingent occasions and opportunity. Crime is not the consequence of a set number of criminals; criminals are the consequence of a set number of opportunities to commit crimes. Close down the open drug market in Washington Square, and it does not automatically migrate to Tompkins Square Park. It just stops, or the dealers go indoors, where dealing goes on but violent crime does not.

And, in a virtuous cycle, the decreased prevalence of crime fuels a decrease in the prevalence of crime. When your friends are no longer doing street robberies, you’re less likely to do them. Zimring said, in a recent interview, “Remember, nobody ever made a living mugging. There’s no minimum wage in violent crime.” In a sense, he argues, it’s recreational, part of a life style: “Crime is a routine behavior; it’s a thing people do when they get used to doing it.” And therein lies its essential fragility. Crime ends as a result of “cyclical forces operating on situational and contingent things rather than from finding deeply motivated essential linkages.” Conservatives don’t like this view because it shows that being tough doesn’t help; liberals don’t like it because apparently being nice doesn’t help, either. Curbing crime does not depend on reversing social pathologies or alleviating social grievances; it depends on erecting small, annoying barriers to entry.

One fact stands out. While the rest of the country, over the same twenty-year period, saw the growth in incarceration that led to our current astonishing numbers, New York, despite the Rockefeller drug laws, saw a marked decrease in its number of inmates. “New York City, in the midst of a dramatic reduction in crime, is locking up a much smaller number of people, and particularly of young people, than it was at the height of the crime wave,” Zimring observes. Whatever happened to make street crime fall, it had nothing to do with putting more men in prison. The logic is self-evident if we just transfer it to the realm of white-collar crime: we easily accept that there is no net sum of white-collar crime waiting to happen, no inscrutable generation of super-predators produced by Dewar’s-guzzling dads and scaly M.B.A. profs; if you stop an embezzlement scheme here on Third Avenue, another doesn’t naturally start in the next office building. White-collar crime happens through an intersection of pathology and opportunity; getting the S.E.C. busy ending the opportunity is a good way to limit the range of the pathology.

Social trends deeper and less visible to us may appear as future historians analyze what went on. Something other than policing may explain things—just as the coming of cheap credit cards and state lotteries probably did as much to weaken the Mafia’s Five Families in New York, who had depended on loan sharking and numbers running, as the F.B.I. could. It is at least possible, for instance, that the coming of the mobile phone helped drive drug dealing indoors, in ways that helped drive down crime. It may be that the real value of hot spot and stop-and-frisk was that it provided a single game plan that the police believed in; as military history reveals, a bad plan is often better than no plan, especially if the people on the other side think it’s a good plan. But one thing is sure: social epidemics, of crime or of punishment, can be cured more quickly than we might hope with simpler and more superficial mechanisms than we imagine. Throwing a Band-Aid over a bad wound is actually a decent strategy, if the Band-Aid helps the wound to heal itself.

Which leads, further, to one piece of radical common sense: since prison plays at best a small role in stopping even violent crime, very few people, rich or poor, should be in prison for a nonviolent crime. Neither the streets nor the society is made safer by having marijuana users or peddlers locked up, let alone with the horrific sentences now dispensed so easily. For that matter, no social good is served by having the embezzler or the Ponzi schemer locked in a cage for the rest of his life, rather than having him bankrupt and doing community service in the South Bronx for the next decade or two. Would we actually have more fraud and looting of shareholder value if the perpetrators knew that they would lose their bank accounts and their reputation, and have to do community service seven days a week for five years? It seems likely that anyone for whom those sanctions aren’t sufficient is someone for whom no sanctions are ever going to be sufficient. Zimring’s research shows clearly that, if crime drops on the street, criminals coming out of prison stop committing crimes. What matters is the incidence of crime in the world, and the continuity of a culture of crime, not some “lesson learned” in prison.

At the same time, the ugly side of stop-and-frisk can be alleviated. To catch sharks and not dolphins, Zimring’s work suggests, we need to adjust the size of the holes in the nets—to make crimes that are the occasion for stop-and-frisks real crimes, not crimes like marijuana possession. When the New York City police stopped and frisked kids, the main goal was not to jail them for having pot but to get their fingerprints, so that they could be identified if they committed a more serious crime. But all over America the opposite happens: marijuana possession becomes the serious crime. The cost is so enormous, though, in lives ruined and money spent, that the obvious thing to do is not to enforce the law less but to change it now. Dr. Johnson said once that manners make law, and that when manners alter, the law must, too. It’s obvious that marijuana is now an almost universally accepted drug in America: it is not only used casually (which has been true for decades) but also talked about casually on television and in the movies (which has not). One need only watch any stoner movie to see that the perceived risks of smoking dope are not that you’ll get arrested but that you’ll get in trouble with a rival frat or look like an idiot to women. The decriminalization of marijuana would help end the epidemic of imprisonment.

The rate of incarceration in most other rich, free countries, whatever the differences in their histories, is remarkably steady. In countries with Napoleonic justice or common law or some mixture of the two, in countries with adversarial systems and in those with magisterial ones, whether the country once had brutal plantation-style penal colonies, as France did, or was once itself a brutal plantation-style penal colony, like Australia, the natural rate of incarceration seems to hover right around a hundred men per hundred thousand people. (That doesn’t mean it doesn’t get lower in rich, homogeneous countries—just that it never gets much higher in countries otherwise like our own.) It seems that one man in every thousand once in a while does a truly bad thing. All other things being equal, the point of a justice system should be to identify that thousandth guy, find a way to keep him from harming other people, and give everyone else a break.

Epidemics seldom end with miracle cures. Most of the time in the history of medicine, the best way to end disease was to build a better sewer and get people to wash their hands. “Merely chipping away at the problem around the edges” is usually the very best thing to do with a problem; keep chipping away patiently and, eventually, you get to its heart. To read the literature on crime before it dropped is to see the same kind of dystopian despair we find in the new literature of punishment: we’d have to end poverty, or eradicate the ghettos, or declare war on the broken family, or the like, in order to end the crime wave. The truth is, a series of small actions and events ended up eliminating a problem that seemed to hang over everything. There was no miracle cure, just the intercession of a thousand smaller sanities. Ending sentencing for drug misdemeanors, decriminalizing marijuana, leaving judges free to use common sense (and, where possible, getting judges who are judges rather than politicians)—many small acts are possible that will help end the epidemic of imprisonment as they helped end the plague of crime.

“Oh, I have taken too little care of this!” King Lear cries out on the heath in his moment of vision. “Take physic, pomp; expose thyself to feel what wretches feel.” “This” changes; in Shakespeare’s time, it was flat-out peasant poverty that starved some and drove others as mad as poor Tom. In Dickens’s and Hugo’s time, it was the industrial revolution that drove kids to mines. But every society has a poor storm that wretches suffer in, and the attitude is always the same: either that the wretches, already dehumanized by their suffering, deserve no pity or that the oppressed, overwhelmed by injustice, will have to wait for a better world. At every moment, the injustice seems inseparable from the community’s life, and in every case the arguments for keeping the system in place were that you would have to revolutionize the entire social order to change it—which then became the argument for revolutionizing the entire social order. In every case, humanity and common sense made the insoluble problem just get up and go away. Prisons are our this. We need take more care – Adam Gopnik


SERIAL KILLERS: SEXUAL PREDATORS

$
0
0

Female Victims

Andrew Urdiales
College student Robbin Brandley was found dead, stabbed 41 times. Though police had many theories about the murderer’s identity, it would take 11 years and the capture of a serial killer to unravel the mystery of her violent death.

Angel Resendez
The Railroad Killer — updated to include his trial and sentencing.

Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianchi, the Hillside Stranglers
It takes more than a few homicides to get the attention of the people in a city the size of Los Angeles. Murders are a daily occurrence. So when three women living hi-risk lifestyles were found strangled and naked on hillsides very few people lost sleep over it. Only a couple sharp homicide detectives became nervous that this was just the beginning. Everything changed when five “nice girls” were abducted from their middle-class neighborhoods.

Two psychopathic cousins made torture into an unspeakable art form as they experimented on their young victims, giving new meaning to the concept of “Evil.”

Anthony Sowell: The Cleveland Strangler
At least 11 bodies have been removed from accused serial killer Sowell’s house, but questions still remain: Are there more victims, and how could police have waited so long to act?

Arohn Kee
Here is a story that tells you why DNA evidence is the greatest advance in crime and punishment since the invention of the jury. Three East Harlem teenage girls’ murder-rapes defy experienced NYPD detectives. The killer moves their bodies from the crime scenes to dump sites in a shopping-cart. After many years, a comparison of DNA taken from serial rapist Arohn Kee is matched against semen found in all three victims. DNA technology also matches Kee’s semen in another rape where an innocent man was charged.

The Baseline Killer
This mysterious assailant, at one point suspected of killing as many as 23 people, prowled the area along Baseline Road in Phoenix. He is now safely behind bars…or is he?

The Beauty Queen Killer
Beautiful young women suddenly vanish and it’s clear that a sadistic killer is on the loose in Florida.

Bela Kiss
Kiss was a rather handsome man with blond hair and remarkable, vibrant blue eyes. Not only had Kiss taught himself his trade as a tinsmith, but he was a voracious reader and was highly conversant on art, literature and history. He struck his fellow villagers as an amiable and hard-working fellow with a penchant for throwing parties at a local hotel. Known as a generous person, everybody liked him and he was considered by the women of the town to be its most eligible bachelor.

His town had a limited choice of female companions, so Kiss kept an apartment in Budapest and took out advertisements in newspapers there.

Over the years a steady stream of lovelies from Budapest spent short periods of time at Kiss’s home in Cinkota, but no one in the town was introduced to these young women who came and went so quickly.

Many of the facts about Bela Kiss will never be known, except that he murdered 24 of the women who came to see him, and that he has to a large extent passed into myth and had grown into a figure larger than life.

Bible John
That’s what they called the tall, very handsome well-dressed young man, who kept reciting passages from the scriptures. He was the last person seen with a three young murder victims, none of them sexually assaulted, but oddly all three were menstruating at the time of their death. DNA has brought forward new leads in this strange unsolved case.

Bobby Joe Long
Shockingly brutal sexual predator terrorizes the Tampa, Florida area, but concerted local and federal investigation brings the crime spree to an end.

Britain’s Bizarre ‘Hair-in-Hand’ Murder Case
The brutal 2002 murder of Heather Barnett stymied British police for eight years, until a morbid discovery in a 15th century Italian church gave them the break they needed.

BTK — Dennis Rader
For three decades, the terrifying serial killer who called himself BTK (“Bind, Torture, Kill”) was uncaught. First he would cut the phone lines, and then he would get into the house somehow, waiting for his victim to come home. The killings drove Wichita’s women into a frenzy, but then the murders unexplicably stopped. Police theorized that BTK could have died or have been incarcerated for some other crime or mental disease, or maybe even moved away.

Then in March, 2004, BTK sent a very convincing letter to the local newspaper, taking responsibility for the September, 1986, unsolved death of Vicki Wegerle. Included with the letter were a photocopy of Wegerle’s driver’s license and three photos of her body that BTK took after he killed her.

In May, BTK sent a copy of the chapter titles of David Lohr’s Crime Library story on the case to a local TV station. Lohr’s feature story was the only BTK case history on the Net at that time. However, BTK had changed several of the chapter titles, including one that he changed to “Will There Be More?”

And so, it began again, with BTK impatiently pointing out to police the murders of his that they missed. Finally, BTK made the mistake that culminated in his capture.

Here is the most detailed story of this case as it unfolded in 1974 and then again in 2004.

Camden Ripper
Highly intelligent, but mentally unstable British mechanical engineer, lures young women to a gruesome death.

Capital City Murders
Abduction and murder of 8 young women associated with the University of Wisconsin in Madison began suddenly in 1968 and ended without a clue in 1984.

Carlton Gary: The Stocking Strangler
New information and doubts are being raised in the 1970s Columbus, Georgia serial killer case in which Carlton Gary, then a young handsome black man, was convicted of the murders of elderly white women.

Carroll Edward Cole
A terrible mother turns a boy with genius IQ into a woman-hating serial killer.

Cary Stayner
The Yosemite Park Murders by good looking “boy next door.” Now with regular updates of current events.

Celluloid Serial Killers
Author Paul Kidd discusses the roots of seminal serial killer movies and how Hollywood has developed the genre. He reviews his top 15 favorites.

Charles Ng and Leonard Lake
Cruel, psychopathic son of wealthy Hong Kong businessman, discharged from the Marines for stealing, and his accomplice kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered an estimated 25 captives in a fortified bunker in California — all caught on video. When Lake killed himself with hidden cyanide tablets, Ng fled to Canada, setting the stage for one of the most expensive legal battles in U.S. history, dwarfing the O.J. Simpson trial.

The Chinatown Widow
Quiet Los Angeles widow is found dead in a pool of blood in blood. It appears that she was tortured in a calculated, cold-blooded sexual assault and murder. LAPD investigators hunker down on this case, promising her family that they will catch her killer, and finally, as the forensic tools evolve, they are able to bring a teen serial killer to justice.

Christopher Wilder
No doubt his need to dominate women and turn them into his sex slaves began well before his arrest at age 17 for participating in a gang rape in Sydney, Australia. Therapists noted that he wanted to hold a woman captive against her will. This charming son of an American naval officer, despite his stable childhood, became compulsive about killing beautiful young women mostly beauty queens who could be models. It was an addiction, spurred by sexual fantasies and excited by a certain type of attractive victim. Eight beauties definitely died by his hand, but he is almost certainly responsible for many other deaths as well.

Ciudad Juarez
Since 1993, upward of 340 young women have been brutally murdered in the Mexican border town. More than a dozen suspects have been jailed, but the killing continues.

The Clairmonte Serial Killer
Profiling, linkage and signature analysis play a major part in the case of African- American Cleophus Prince Jr., charged with murdering six attractive white women in the San Diego area.

Cody Legebokoff: Canada’s Accused ‘Country Boy’ Serial Killer
A 21-year-old man who used the moniker 1CountryBoy online is accused of murdering four women.

Craig Price
15-year-old black serial killer would have gone free under R.I. law, but a visit from President Clinton helps galvanize lawmakers and cops.

Danny Rolling — The Gainesville Ripper
On August 20 1990, the beautiful university town of Gainesville, Florida was ranked as being the thirteenth best place to live in the United States by Money magazine. By the end of the following week it looked as though Jack the Ripper had been reincarnated in sunny Florida. First, a bloodied naked body of a young woman was found lying grotesquely on a bed with her arms above her head. Then, another young woman was found nearby. Both had been stabbed repeatedly, mutilated and deliberately positioned for maximum shock effect.

Darren O’Neall
Popular crime author Gary C. King tells the story from his book Blind Rage about this serial killer who carried out terrible and unthinkable acts of cruelty against the young women who were his victims.

David Parker Ray
A woman’s escape from a sadomasochistic dungeon uncovers the activities of one of the most extreme sexual sadists.

David Russell Williams
Pride of the Canadian Forces Williams became the Kinky Killer Colonel when his fetish escalated from panty raids to sexual assault and murder. Through it all he kept meticulous written and photographic records.

David Selepe
A brutal series of murders of young middle class women outside Johannesburg, South Africa. Selepe, the key suspect,is killed by police when he tries to escape. Was he the sole killer, an accomplice of serial killer Moses Sithole, or an innocent man?

David Spanbauer
At age 19, this Wisconsin psychopath broke into a home, tied a young baby sitter to a bed and raped her at knife point. He then shot the homeowner in the face. Sentenced to 70 years, he only served a few years. He then raped another teenager and was sentenced to only 12 years, but was again released to hone his skill as a serial killer.

Dayton Leroy Rogers
Prominent true crime author Gary King’s feature story on one of the Northwest’s worst serial nightmares. A Crime Library exclusive.

Dennis Nilsen
In recent times, British authorities have prevented his 4,000-page memoir from being published, but on November 4, 2006, he sent a three-page letter from Full Sutton Prison to an editor of The Evening Standard. While in carefully printed prose he discussed the recent development, out of “consideration for the victim’s family” he declined to provide the most graphic details.

Derrick Todd Lee
Beautiful women are abducted from their homes in the Baton Rouge area and panic ensues as the residents realize there is a serial killer in their midst. Small-town investigators with sharp instincts identify Baton Rouge serial killer while big agencies are derailed with flawed FBI profile guiding their activities. DNA finally turns them in the right direction.

Derrick Todd Lee, The Baton Rouge Serial Killer
Beautiful white women are abducted from their homes in the Baton Rouge, La. area and panic ensues as the Baton Rouge residents realize there is a serial killer in their midst. Big city cops with a flawed FBI profile in hand, look for a white killer, but DNA finally turns them in the right direction.

Donald Blom: A Repeat Sex Offender Finally Stopped
The abduction of a young woman from a Minnesota gas station sparks a manhunt which unearths the trail of a serial sex-offender adept at shifting identities and covering his tracks.

Edmund Kemper
At age 15, this genius-level serial killer killed his grandparents. Then he killed pretty hitchhikers and ended up decapitating his mother.

Elizabeth Bathory
This legendary countess is remembered for murdering women for fun and bathing in their blood to make herself more beautiful. Was there any truth to this heinous legend or was this a story concocted by her powerful political enemies?

The Frankford Slasher
The Frankford area of Philadelphia was once a town older than the City of Brotherly Love itself. At one time, it was a prosperous area, but by 1980 it had become a crime-ridden slum populated by prostitutes, junkies, and small businesses struggling to survive. This was the area that Sylvester Stallone selected as the setting for his film Rocky.

It was here in 1985 where the first victim was found in a railroad yard.

Helen Patent was nude from the waist down and she had been posed in a sexually provocative position, with her legs open and her blouse pulled up to expose her breasts. She was 52 when she died, and while it was clear to the police that she had been stabbed many times, it took an autopsy to determine the official cause and manner of death. She had been sexually assaulted and had died from 47 stab wounds to her head and chest. She had also been stabbed in the right arm, and one vicious and deep slash across her abdomen had exposed the internal organs.

Between seven and eight women from 28-68 became the victims of this violent rapist and serial killer in an old section of Philadelphia. Leonard Christopher, a quiet black man who worked in the area, was arrested and convicted for the murder of one victim in the series. But the quality of the evidence used to convict Christopher is controversial, especially since another likely killing in the series occurred while he was in jail.

Gary Leon Ridgway
Scores of women murdered in the Seattle area results in the longest running homicide investigation in U.S. history. Finally DNA evidence points the finger at Gary Ridgway as the killer.

Genesee River Strangler
A shocking case of criminal behavior and government incompetence leaves a number of women dead.

George Russell
The friendly, trust-inspiring singles bar psychopath.

Gerald Eugene Stano
Persistent and creative police work in Florida yields the killer of more than 40 women in several states.

Gerard Schaefer
Out-of-control psychopath, using his job as deputy sheriff to deceive, excels in double murders of girls and young women, killing as many as 36. Cheated from the pleasure of murdering women, in prison he runs a porno ring, a jailhouse lawyer scam, and a mail fraud operation.

The Girl in the Box
It started out as a simple trip from her home in Oregon to see her friend in California, but she never got there. As she hitchhiked, she was picked up by Cameron & Janice Hooker. Instead she spent the next seven years chained, blindfolded and living in a ventilated box, wearing a slave collar.

Eventually she was allowed to do household chores such as cooking, washing dishes, and cleaning up for the couple and their two children. Yet whenever Cameron yelled “Attention!” she was to strip off her clothes, stand on her tiptoes, and reach her hands to the top of the doorway between the living room and dining room.

Then one day the whole nightmare ended as quickly as it had begun.

Glen Rogers
Called the “Cross Country Killer,” this good-looking, smooth-talking extrovert “always got what he wanted” and took extraordinary risks as he traveled all across the country to murder and rob the redheaded women that especially appealed to him.

Green River Murders
Scores of women murdered in the Seattle area results in the longest running homicide investigation in U.S. history. Finally DNA evidence points the finger at Gary Leon Ridgway as the killer. His unsuspecting wife tells of their remarkable relationship.

The Grim Sleeper
The 1980s crack epidemic in South Central Los Angeles masked the work of more than one serial killer. One of them, The Grim Sleeper, stopped killing for 14 years before resuming his brutal activities. Now police have a man in custody, but will the killing stop?

Harrison Graham
Philadelphia serial killer murders his girlfriends and leaves their corpses around in his home. Some believe that he is slow-witted, drug addicted or insane, others see him entertaining, religious and a talented artist with some eccentricities.

Harvey Murray Glatman
He would spot a pretty woman on Denver’s streets and follow her home. After he was assured of her address, he would climb through a window or up a set of back stairs into her abode. Once inside, he forced her to her bedroom where he secured her hands with a length of cord he carried in his jacket everywhere he went. He also muzzled her mouth with a gag cloth. The gun brought the advantage, the cloth silenced her yelps, but the rope, he discovered, was the key to a new sensation. It pinned back the woman’s flailing arms, allowing him the liberty to run his fingers across a soft, curving body without interruption. To explore new mysteries and reach new peaks. The lady was at his mercy as he had been at the mercy of all those girls who had called him laughable names on the playground.

Tying victims to a bed or a chair, he unbuttoned their blouses, loosened their skirts, and fondled their flesh and, simultaneously, his own. Sometimes he made them lie down beside him and pretended that they enjoyed it as much as he did. He would not fully undress them, nor rape them for the libido was fully satisfied just to crack the moral bell jar. But, best of all for the inadequate Harvey Glatman, the more he touched them the more comfortable he became in their presence. After each molestation, he felt himself more like the man he wanted to be and not like the loser in those newspaper ads promoting vitamins, the guy who gets sand kicked in his face by some muscleman.

His horrifying photos were more than souvenirs because, in Glatman’s mind, they actually carried the power of his need for bondage and control. They showed the women in various poses: sitting up or lying down, hands always bound behind their backs, innocent looks on their faces, but with eyes wide with terror because they had guessed what was to come.”

Harvey Robinson
Intelligent teen athlete with chronic juvenile rap sheet turns into a rampaging rapist, stalker and serial killer. Despite his good points, his chronic violence puts him on Pennsylvania’s death row.

Henry Louis Wallace
An African-American murderer terrorizes a southern community.

Hunting Humans
Alaskan serial killer lured women to his cabin, brutalized them and then released them in the wilderness. Then he hunted them down like wild animals.

Ivan Milat
The notorious serial killer who preyed upon young tourists that came to visit Australia’s beautiful Belangalo State Forest. The “Backpacker Murders” was one of the country’s largest homicide investigations, which finally produced the painstaking evidence needed to put this monster away for life.

Jack the Ripper
Jack the Ripper was the most famous serial killer of all time. Brutally murdering prostitutes in London’s notorious Whitechapel district, he caused a panic in 1888.

Why does this long-ago killer who murdered a few prostitutes merit the attention he gets? Because Jack the Ripper represents the classic whodunit. Not only is the case an enduring unsolved mystery that professional and amateur sleuths have tried to solve for over a hundred years, but the story has a terrifying, almost supernatural quality to it. He comes from out of the fog, kills violently and quickly and disappears without a trace. Then for no apparent reason, he satisfies his blood lust with ever-increasing ferocity, culminating in the near destruction of his final victim, and then vanishes from the scene forever. The perfect ingredients for the perennial thriller.

A criminal profile by former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary and a penetrating analysis of the many suspects shed light on this legendary killer.

Jacksonville Serial Killer
Five young black women, two of which were pregnant, are murdered by a serial killer on a seven-week murder spree in Florida. The suspect, Paul Durousseaux, is also tied to a murder in Georgia.

Jeremy Bryan Jones
On Halloween night in 2002, Tina Mayberry stepped out of Gipson’s restaurant in Douglasville, Georgia, where she’d been attending a Halloween party. Moments later, she staggered back into the bar, bleeding from stab wounds and seeking help. Despite frantic efforts of party goers and the paramedics, she died a short time later at an Atlanta hospital. She had neither been robbed nor sexually molested; there was no apparent motive, no clues, no suspect.

Vicki Freeman described her boyfriend Jeremy as “….caring, considerate, loving. Gentle.” Freeman, fourteen years Jones’ senior, met him in 2003 in the same bar where Tina Mayberry was stabbed. Jones approached her and told her she was beautiful. It was apparently love at first sight.

But love with Jeremy Jones had a dark side, and Freeman admitted that he had been physically abusive, but that they always made up. She thinks that the police are piling all their old crimes on her lover, trying to clear their books of unsolved murders.

This glib, good-looking psychopath raped & killed over a dozen women for fun, bragging he can “talk the panties off a nun.” Mistaken FBI fingerprint system allowed him to hide under another criminal’s identity for years, resulting in the unnecessary death of several women.

Jerry Brudos
Sharon Wood, 24, left her secretarial job in Portland and entered the basement level of a parking garage to look for her car when a tall, pudgy man approached her. She later told police that she had sensed someone behind her and had tried to return to an area where she could hear other people. But then someone tapped her shoulder and she turned around. The man was holding a pistol.

In a split second, she decided to fight. She had barely a chance against him, but she believed that if she didn’t struggle while someone might still hear her, she’d die that day. Instinct told her that this man had murder on his mind.

Sharon kicked at him with her high-heeled shoes, screamed again and bit him hard. Yet he managed to slam her head on the concrete, dazing her. Fortunately another car came along, and her attacker ran off. She survived, but not long afterward another young woman did not.

Brudos is one of the most shocking serial killers ever and the subject of Ann Rule’s book The Lust Killer. He abducted, tortured & mutilated young women in his garage, right under the noses of his wife and children. An analysis of the psychological factors that created this monster.

Serial killer Jerry Brudos, died March 28, 2006.

Joachim Kroll
Likable, but not very intelligent, he was called “Uncle” by the neighborhood children, until he killed and ate one. Later he unfolded a shocking series of murders that sickened the people of Germany.

Joel Patrick Courtney
On the morning of May 24, 2004, Brooke Wilberger, a beautiful blonde, blue-eyed coed who had just completed her freshman year at Brigham Young University, was washing lampposts in the Corvallis, Oregon apartment complex managed by her sister and brother-in-law. One moment she was there, the next moment, she was gone. She left behind her flip flops, a pail of sudsy water, and no witnesses to her disappearance.

Only one man saw something. His name was Brian, and he called the police, saying he’d seen a green minivan driving erratically. Before he could explain further, the call was disconnected, and he never called back.

On November 30, 2004, a foreign exchange student in New Mexico was grabbed at knifepoint and ordered into the back of a red two-door Honda with tinted windows. The assailant drove her to a deserted parking lot, and threatened to kill her unless she undressed and performed oral sex on him. He tied her ankles together with a shoelace, tied her wrists with a scarf, stuffed her panties into her mouth and pinned them there by tying another shoelace around her head.

Clues in both cases led to a violent man with a long rap sheet who had no business being free.

Joel Rifkin
People thought this mild-mannered, socially-backward guy was harmless, but 17 women died by his hand before he was caught red-handed with a decomposing body in his truck.

John Eric Armstrong
Model sailor traveled on warship to murder prostitutes all over the world. Now updated to include his trial and sentencing.

John Norman Collins
Convicted of one murder in the late 1960s Michigan college campus serial murder case, police believed that he was responsible for all of them. Collins was implicated superficially in fifteen murders, but only the first seven on the list were officially considered his

At the time, he was a 22-year-old student at Eastern Michigan University, majoring in education when he was arrested for the murder of Karen Sue Beineman. He was from Center Line, a suburb north of Detroit, where he had lived with his mother and stepfather. At six feet, he was wiry and muscular, with neatly trimmed dark brown hair and sideburns. Many people thought him handsome and easy to talk to.

Attractive or not, he had a dark side that was beginning to emerge. He had belonged to a fraternity, but had been kicked out under suspicion of theft. He had also engaged in petty burglaries for fun and kept his four motorcycles running with stolen parts. One of his professors suspected him of cheating.

In addition to being sexually very aggressive with dates, Collins also had expressed some ideologies that bordered on psychopathy. He had told a girl that if a man had to kill, he killed. If he decided it was right for him to do it, then he had to do it. The perfect crime, he told her, was when there was no guilt. Without guilt, a person could not get caught.

New DNA evidence and the conviction of Gary Earl Leiterman suggest that there were several perpetrators.

John Robinson
This first Internet serial killer is one of the boldest criminals in recent history, using bondage and S&M to lure unsuspecting women to their deaths. His story is one of the most bizarre and lengthy homicidal careers in American criminal history.

His brutal treatment of his sometimes willing victims stands in stark contrast to his benign, fleshy appearance. Robinson compounded his murderous ways by taking the infant of one victim and selling it to his brother, pretending to be a do-good adoption broker. He seduced vulnerable or lonely women he met through Internet chat rooms and killed them, continuing to cash their government checks or alimony payments for years with just minimal interference from their desperate families and frustrated investigators.

Joseph Naso
If it weren’t for his constant petty thievery, accused Double Initial Killer Naso might never have come to the attention of police. A chance visit on April 13, 2010, by his parole officer, resulted in a search of Naso’s home and evidence linking him to three murders.

Keith Hunter Jesperson
The Happy Face Killer

Kendall Francois
Troubled young man lured eight working women to his family’s home, murdered them and disposed of them in the walls. Eventually, the family realized that they had a home full of decomposing corpses.

Kitty Genovese
Her name was Catherine Genovese, the 28-year-old daughter of Italian-American parents. But to millions of people who read her story when it first appeared in New York Citys press, she would forever be remembered as “Kitty” Genovese. What happened to her, what happened to all of society on that dreadful night in the spring of 1964, would reverberate across the country and generate a national soul-searching that is reserved for only the most catastrophic of events. And nearly 40 years later, her name has become synonymous with a dark side of an urban character that, for many people, represents a harsh and disturbing reality of big city life.

Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris
He signs his prison fan mail “Pliers.”

His psychiatrist saw what he was: “a highly dangerous man, with no internal controls over his impulses, a man who could kill without hesitation or remorse.” When he was released from prison, Bittaker told a cellmate that someday he planned to be “bigger than Manson.”

Along with prison-buddy psychopath Roy Norris, Bittaker constructed a van called the Murder Mack and collected pretty teenage girls to rape, torture and kill in the San Gabriel Mountains. In the isolated mountain areas, they went to work on their young victims with vice-grip pliers, urging them to scream into their tape recorder before they snuffed out their voices forever.

Yes, he’s on death row in California — a condition that stretches into decades — playing cards with other serial killers, filling frivolous lawsuits against the state and selling his fingernail clippings to murder groupies.

Lemuel Smith
Forensic bite marks is the only evidence in this remarkable case.

Leonard John Fraser
Lifetime psychopathic misfit is permitted to rape and assault women, rewarded with short prison times and then released to wreak havoc on the female population. Finally after a number of murders, he is locked up for good. He should be the poster boy for much tougher sentencing laws in Australia.

Lorenzo Gilyard
For sixteen years, he raped, robbed and murdered. Suddenly he quit, became a model employee and figured he’d never have to pay for the murder of at least 13 women. But then the Feds gave Kansas City a grant to solve cold cases. Even though he killed almost 3 times as many people as Jack the Ripper, few have ever heard his name.

Mel Ignatow
When Brenda Sue Schaefer broke up with Mel Ignatow, he was furious and plotted his revenge. When her body was discovered, though all signs pointed to Ignatow, Kentucky’s justice system struggled to bring him to account.

Melvin Rees
Famed psychic Peter Hurkos sheds light on the brutal serial rapes and murders by this handsome jazz musician.

Michael Gargiulo: A Hollywood Ripper
Many attractive young women go to southern California to get into show business. Some, however, like Ashley Ellerin (shown with boyfriend Ashton Kutcher), wound up as victims of a serial killer as vicious as Jack the Ripper.

Michael Ross
Sixteen-year-old Paula Perrera was a bubbly, confident, carefree girl who performed well in school, enjoyed the company of her tight-knit group of friends as much as a good book and was active in the church youth group.

On many occasions she chose to bypass the school bus altogether and instead hitchhiked to classes. Paula’s boyfriend begged her not to hitchhike because of the inherent dangers, she ignored his pleas claiming that, “only nice people pick me up.”

Michael Ross was later quoted saying to police during an interview “as soon as I saw her (Paula), she was dead.” Paula was not Michael’s first victim, nor would she be his last. In fact, before his capture he would claim responsibility for the murders of 8 young women.

While at school, Michael was socially active and joined several organizations. Moreover, he became involved in several relationships with some beautiful young co-eds, one to which he became engaged. However, the relationships always ended in failure and Michael’s “dream of the perfect family began to be crowded by other fantasies disturbing, violent, sexual fantasies.”

It didn’t take long for his fantasies to spiral out of control.

Michel Fourniret
Suspected of murders of young women and children in France, Belgium and other European countries, he says he killed about 2 a year for a decade or more. An unbelievably botched French investigation and cover-up of potentially hi-level clients of a pedophile ring. A key investigator who would have exposed this scandal was killed just before the court presentation and his death made to look like a suicide. This case when it comes to trial will echo the Belgian government scandal with the Marc Dutroux case.

‘Mike’ DeBardeleben
Profiling experts John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood and true-crime author Stephen Michaud examine the personalities of sexual sadists and serial rapists, along with the career of this particularly brutal criminal.

The Mobile Torture Chamber of Serial Killer Robert Ben Rhoades
Serial killer Robert Ben Rhoades kidnapped and tortured his victims inside a chamber set up inside his big rig truck.

The Monster of Florence
For decades, this bizarre predator stalked men and women in love, murdered them and sexually mutilated the women. A number of men were suspected of being the “Monster” and there were several trials associated with this unsolved case. This most unusual story inspired author Thomas Harris to locate one of his Hannibal Lecter books in Florence.

Moses Sithole
Charming & polite head of Youth Against Human Abuse raped 40 women, murdered another 37 and 1 child. He is South Africa’s Ted Bundy.

The Night Stalker: Richard Ramirez
Known as the Night Stalker, he worships Satan and longs to sit next to him in Hell. His series of horrifying crimes in the suburbs of Los Angeles and San Francisco were meant to show Satan that he is just as evil as Jack the Ripper.

Incredibly, this fiend was the darling of many groupies who found his rebelliousness irresistible. Now on death row in California, he has married one of them.

Paul Denyer
Over a 7-week period in the summer of 1993, three young women were stabbed and slashed to death in and around Frankston in southeastern Victoria. There was nothing to connect them other than they all lived in the Frankston district.

When he was finally caught, the Frankston serial killer was an oafish lay-about who called himself John Candy, after the late funnyman. But Denyer was no funnyman. He dissected his sister’s teddy bears at age 10 and then slit the throat of the family’s pet kitten and hung its corpse from a tree branch in the back yard. Several months before he embarked on his summer murder spree, Denyer had disemboweled a friend’s cat and cut the throats of its kittens.

Paul John Knowles
Soon after killing Mr. Carr, the John Paul Knowles put on one of Carr’s suits and wandered into a Holiday Inn bar in Atlanta, Georgia. At the same time, British journalist Sandy Fawkes came into the bar looking for a drink. She had just come in from a failed assignment in Washington, D.C., feeling tired and discouraged, and she noticed him. Thinking he was handsome, she described him like this: “His gaunt good looks made him stand out from the crowd.” She observed his nice suit and tie and thought he might be European. However, when he came over to ask her to dance, she declined and said she had to work. She then left to go to the local newspaper offices, but upon her return, the stranger was still there. “Decidedly, he really was very handsome,” she wrote, “tall, well over six foot, broad-shouldered, narrow-hipped and as slender as a wraith.” She noted his carved cheekbones, beaked nose, and “well-formed mouth.” They struck up a conversation, went to dinner, and despite her resolve, they ended up in bed.

This handsome psychopath, known as the Casanova Killer, went on a spree that left 18-20 people dead.

Peter Norris Dupas
An ordinary, inconspicuous man, from a good family, that no one would dream could be capable of raping and stabbing his victims so brutally. He was in and out of prison, treated frequently for his violent compulsions, but always let out again to continue his depraved “career” that is, until he started to kill his victims.

Peter Sutcliffe
On Friday, 2 January 1981 the Yorkshire Ripper’s reign of terror came to an end. In the previous five years, beginning in July 1975 with his first attack, he had killed thirteen women and left seven others for dead. The seven survivors were told how lucky they were, but with physical, emotional and psychological scars that would never completely heal, they didn’t feel very lucky.

Some would even believe that they would have been better off if the man they had known for so long as The Ripper, had succeeded in killing them. As England celebrated this triumph of good over evil, the Yorkshire Ripper’s family sat stunned. It was incomprehensible to them that the Peter William Sutcliffe that they knew and loved could possibly be responsible for the heinous crimes of the Yorkshire Ripper.

The Pied Piper

Hey, come on, babe, follow me.
I’m the Pied Piper follow me.
I’m the Pied Piper
And I’ll show you were it’s at

Charles Howard Schmid Jr., or “Smitty,” was called “The Pied Piper of Tucson,” for his ability to get girls to fall for him. He stood five feet, four inches tall, but added three more inches by padding his stack-heeled cowboy boots with rags and tin cans. He also dyed his reddish-brown hair black, used pancake make-up, whitened his lips, and applied a fake mole to his left cheek a “beauty” mark. Arrogant and narcissistic, he came from a wealthy family, so he used the niceties he could buy to impress young high school girls. He adopted the droopy-eyed look associated with Elvis, his idol, and acquired a rock musician’s mystique.

Smitty was a fixture around the high school, luring girls into his cars. They hung out on Speedway, a main drag, and they were easy prey for a predatoreven one who stumbled around in his ridiculous boots. He became something of a folk hero to kids who didn’t quite fit in, because he was older and he knew things. He was strange, but he livened things up in a desert town full of retired people where nothing much was happening. Smitty made things interesting.

Many girls went out with him and three never returned. There are a lot of places to bury a body in the desert.

The Red Spider
Also known as Red Ripper, he stalked teenage girls, raped, strangled and mutilated them until some excellent detective work crushed the Spider for good.

Richard Speck
Judy Dykton decided to get some early morning studying done for a neurology exam. She heard a sound like an animal crying outside. Ignoring it, she decided to do some laundry before hitting the books. Once more she heard something. This time she thought it sounded like a child crying out. She pulled open the blinds and saw a woman across the street at 2319, perched on a ledge. Judy pushed open the window and heard Cora’s tearful cry. “Oh, my God, they are all dead!”

Reporter Joe Cummings went up to the second floor, looked down the hall and turned right. It was still dark, the sun had begun to rise. He walked down the hall. To his right, he saw bodies of the nurses inside the bedroom, their skin a sickly ochre. A little further down the hall, he saw another bedroom with three more bodies and said. “Oh my God.” That made seven upstairs and one downstairs. Eight in total.

Riverside Prostitute Killer
Expert police work and forensics leads to the conviction of a seemingly harmless county employee for the torture murders of 19 drug-addicted prostitutes. Imprisoned years earlier for murdering his baby daughter, he was let out of prison after 10 years on a 70-year sentence.

Robert and Stephen Spahalski
An upstate New York serial killer and his antisocial identical twin fuel debate over the heritable components of violent crime.

Robert Charles Browne
An imprisoned psychopath attempts to confess to dozens of murders, provoking debate as to his motives and veracity.

Robert Garrow
Screwed-up loser and sexual predator stalks young women and girls in New York state, until his crimes catch up with him.

Robert Leroy Anderson
A study in sexual sadism, he & his friend stalked and abducted attractive women to torture, rape & murder.

Robert Pickton
The Vancouver-area pig farmer was found guilty of second-degree murder in an estimated, highly controversial, $100 million investigation and longest trial in Canadian history. Pickton preyed upon sex trade workers and is believed to have been responsible for the deaths of some 60 women. Many were stunned and disappointed that he was not found guilty of murder in the first degree.

Rodney Alcala
Serial killer and the worst contestant ever on the dating game.

Roger Reece Kibbe
Prostitutes and young women traveling deserted stretches of interstate I-5 of the Sacramento area in the 1970s and 1980s were stalked by a psychopath whose fetishes for women’s clothing left a damning thread of evidence.

Scott Lee Kimball
Scott Lee Kimball won his release from prison by promising to work as an FBI informant. Instead, he went on a multi-state killing spree which ended only when the victims’ families put the pieces together.

Sex Slaves
It’s hard to imagine that these cases occur so often in recent times, but there are quite a number of them. Dr. Katherine Ramsland looks at some of the most interesting and high-profile cases where individuals and couples have become obsessed with taking sex slaves.

There are four basic victim types and sometimes their stories lead to the grave and sometimes to freedom. The slave masters are also very diverse psychologically in the way they practice this deadly game of dominance and submission.

The Spokane Serial Killer
The stark realization that the deaths of seven women since late summer 1997, four of whom were killed during the year’s final weeks, were the work of a serial killer, renewed fears among the public and law enforcement officials alike that the infamous and elusive Seattle-area Green River Killer had found a new killing ground in and around Spokane, Washington.

It was only talk and speculation, quelled by the fact that the killer’s method of operation was markedly different from that of the Green River Killer. Disturbingly, the number of bodies would more than double before they stopped, and many others would be attributed to the same killer.

Surprisingly when the killer was found, he turned out to be the father of four daughters and a son, who led a relatively ordinary and unremarkable life that was characterized by exemplary military service.

Steven Avery
DNA evidence exculpates him from one rape/attempted murder, but nails him on the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach, a young photographer who visited him for business reasons. Even worse, he involves his teenage nephew in the horrible crime.

Stewart Wilken
South African serial killer is unusual in choosing both female prostitutes and adolescent boys as victims.

The Sunset Strip Murders
Carol found Doug to be suddenly quite controlling. He demanded that she do what he wanted and threatened to abandon her if she did not comply. He wanted a sex slave, someone who would see to all of his needs, mundane and bizarre. She gave in, expecting that in return he would be true to her. But he soon told her that he was tired of having sex with her and needed something new and more exciting. He brought prostitutes home, and to please him Carol went along with it.

It was a long hot summer for LAPD. Bodies of young women were found mutilated, even headless, and dumped along the embankments around the freeway ramps.

Soon a call came into the station from a woman who implicated her boyfriend in the killings but who refused to offer details that could help to locate him. She could have been just a crank caller, but she was correct about how the murders had been done. She knew details that had not been released to the media. But the switchboard cut her off and she did not call back. If she had, some lives could have been saved and she might not have taken the path she did.

It was no crank call.

Ted Bundy
The most frightening of serial killers: a handsome, educated psychopathic law student who stalked and murdered dozens of young college women who looked very much like a young woman who broke off her relationship with him.

Bundy was a very adept and glib con artist who faked a broken arm in a sling to convince young women to help him carry his textbooks to his car. Once there, he battered them with a baseball bat and carried them off for ghoulish rituals.

Texas Eyeball Killer
He did not fit the profile of a serial killer. He had a master’s degree, knew several languages, was a former science teacher, was charming, was in a seemingly satisfying relationship, and seemed completely at ease with having his home searched and his gun tested. He did not abuse substances. Associates who were questioned about him remained loyal, certain the police had the wrong man. He had coached football, helped with Cub Scouts, and was kind to children. He was both articulate and artistic, a cultivated man accomplished in many things from piano to bullfighting, who seemed anything but a murderer. He was generous, friendly, and helpful to people in need.

Theo Durrant
Handsome medical student and Sunday school superintendent outrages the people of San Francisco in the 1890s with the murder of his girlfriends.

Tommy Lynn Sells
He just loved to kill. It was almost a mission.

Calling himself “Coast to Coast,” to describe his geographic reach, he admitted the murder of Katy Harris and the throat-slashing of her friend. He said he killed an entire family in Illinois, a mother and daughter in Missouri, a teenage girl in Lexington, Ky., a drifter in Arizona, a child in San Antonio. And there were many morea string of perhaps 20 murders across America that spanned three decades, by Sells’ account.

The Trailside Killer: David Carpenter
Edda Kane went out on August 19 in 1979 to hike the trails in a park at the foot of Mount Tamalpais, also known as “the Sleeping Lady,” which overlooked San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge. But she did not return home that day. Found the next day, Edda was dead. She’d been attacked from behind and had a bullet wound on the back of her skull…

Victim to Victimizer: Jason Massey
Young man becomes obsessed with torture and murder, idolizes Charles Manson and seeks to become a “murder machine.” Dr. Ramsland presents the interesting case forensics and emotional pathology.

Wayne Adam Ford
Young Marine suffered head injury that completely changed his behavior and pushed him into murder. Now, he has a new friend, busty GroBust spokeswoman Victoria Redstall who threatens to make him a “star” in a her documentary.

William Heirens
Lipstick Killer or legal scapegoat?

Male Victims

Anna Marie Hahn
Arsenic Anna: Sweet young woman lures older benefactors to their deaths

The Butcher of Wollongong
Australia’s Mark Mala Valera was a budding serial killer until he turned himself in to authorities after butchering an elderly man and a former Lord Mayor of Wollongong. His next victim was to be his father, but his lovely sister and her wonderful boyfriend, butchered him themselves as a favor to Mark. This is an interesting study of a very violent and dangerous pair of siblings.

Colin Ireland
Serial killer expert Anna Gekoski’s provocative interview with the man who lured five London homosexuals with sadomasochistic tendencies to their death. Ridding the world of perverts or indulging in lust murder fantasies? New insight into the motives of serial killers.

Daniel Conahan Jr.
Serial killer who preyed upon homosexual men around the Gulf Coast of Florida, called the Hog Trail Murders.

Dennis Nilsen
England’s Jeffrey Dahmer kept his mutilated lovers in his apartment

The Florida Gay Bar Murders
Gary Ray Bowles, violent bisexual, cruised the Florida gay bars in the mid-1990’s looking for men of means to live off, rob and murder.

The Handcuffman
Troubled Atlanta lawyer stalks the patrons of gay bars, handcuffs and drugs his victims and then sets them on fire.

Herb Baumeister
The deadly secret of respected husband, father and businessman

Jeffrey Dahmer
A young man from a good family deviated into necrophilia and cannibalism, then lured boys to his apartment to be murdered and maimed.

John Wayne Gacy
One of the most notorious serial killers, “respectable” Chicago-area businessman hires young men to work in his contracting company, then rapes and murders scores of them, burying their bodies on his properties. In prison, he became the focus of researching the psychopathic mind.

Juan Corona
In Sutter County, California, near the Feather River five miles north of Yuba City, a Japanese farmer named Goro Kagehiro was touring his peach orchard on May 19, 1971 when he spotted a freshly-dug hole between two trees that appeared to be the size of a man. He could not understand why someone had dug there. It turned out to be the grave of migrant workers who had been the victims of a killing spree. At least 25 men were eventually found buried in that area.

Corona provided labor to the farmers and was eventually convicted of the crimes, but evidence has surfaced that suggests a rush to judgment.

Larry Eyler the Highway Murderer
The Highway Murderer claimed at least ten victims before members of various law enforcement agencies realized their separate cases involved a single predator. Even then, years of suspicion and police harassment in the gay community prevented witnesses and traumatized survivors of the crime spree from communicating with authorities.

Last Call Killer
Richard W. Rogers finally convicted of the murder of two of his numerous gay male victims. VMD, vacuum metal deposition, technology which saves fingerprints from plastic bags, was a key factor in his trial. Rogers disposed of his victims in plastic trash bags which he dumped along the roadways in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Marie Hilley
Marie Hilley is a mystery. Her presence still hovers over her family and friends, and with it the deeply painful questions with no answers. What made her do such ghastly things? What motivated her complicated stories and alibis? Was there anybody that she truly loved? And, finally, who was the real Marie?

Those who should have known her best knew her least. Marie murdered her husband, but it didn’t stop there. She poisoned her daughter and other close relatives. Her murderous escapades undermined what should have been the most sacred of family relationships. When it appeared she would finally be brought to justice for her crimes, she disappeared and began life anew with an assumed identity. One persona after another, discarded when it no longer suited her needs. The story of Marie Hilley is a study in deceit, pathological obsession and serial murder.

Nanny Doss
Lonely Hearts lady loved her men to death.

Patrick Kearney
When his lover, David Hill, became angry and left for a few days, Kearney, a California aircraft engineer with a good position, would boil over with rage and go cruising for someone to take out his frustrations on. Over a period of time, he killed at least 21 men, mutilated and dismembered them, and finally disposed of them in trash bags.

Randy Kraft
After arresting him for drunk driving, the cop saw a man slumped in the passenger’s seat, partially covered by a jacket. He tried in vain to rouse Kraft’s passenger. The man was barefoot, with his pants unzipped and genitals exposed. He had no pulse and his neck was ringed with red marks, as if he had been strangled. Prosperous data processing consultant preyed upon teenage boys, leaving them dead and mutilated. Convicted of 16 murders, the true count may be closer to 67.

Robert and Stephen Spahalski
An upstate New York serial killer and his antisocial identical twin fuel debate over the heritable components of violent crime.

Robert Berdella
An art student turns into a sadistic Jeffrey-Dahmer-like murderer of young men, known as the Butcher of Kansas City. This interactive forensics story goes into the psychology of a psychopath.

Sex Slaves
It’s hard to imagine that these cases occur so often in recent times, but there are quite a number of them. Dr. Katherine Ramsland looks at some of the most interesting and high-profile cases where individuals and couples have become obsessed with taking sex slaves.

There are four basic victim types and sometimes their stories lead to the grave and sometimes to freedom. The slave masters are also very diverse psychologically in the way they practice this deadly game of dominance and submission.

Thomas Dillon
Bizarre Ohio serial killer who murdered several men to satisfy his cravings for power.

Velma Barfield
This adoring mother and pious Christian grandmother had a secret habit — she poisoned her husbands, boyfriends, elderly people in her care and even her mother. The amazing thing is how long this Black Widow serial poisoner got away with it.

West Hollywood Hustle
Five middle-aged men have been stripped naked, tied up and found strangled. There is no blood, no struggle, no witnesses and no suspects. It appears that a serial killer has a specific prey…. and a need for ATM cards. Can investigators link a bank photo to the person before he strikes again?

William Bonin
Known as the “Freeway Killer” convicted of murdering 14 boys and young men, but suspected in the murder of 30. “He was impassioned about what he did. He loved it,” said L.A. prosecutor. “Listening to his confession was like sitting in a room of horrors. Here we are talking about killing kids and throwing them out like pieces of trash, and then going back to get another. It made me sick.” Bonin played the appeals game cleverly for 17 years, using the justice system to his advantage.

Child Victims

Albert Fish
This gentle-looking, benevolent grandfather cleverly lured children to their death, then devised recipes to eat them. This cannibal model for Hannibal Lecter is a study in criminal psychology and a true enigma. His wife thought him to be a wonderful husband and his children believed him to be a model father. What inner torments caused him to drive many spikes into his pelvis and tell people that he looked forward to his execution?

John Borowski’s film about the demented child killer is an engaging piece of visual art that has raised the bar on this type of subject.

Andrzej Kunowski
In 1997, London web site designer Trajce Koneva began a 6-year waking nightmare when he rushed home from work because his 12-year-old daughter, Katerina, didn’t answer the phone after returning from school. When he got to his apartment, he chased a man he thought was a burglar, but lost him and called police. When he returned to his home, he found his daughter strangled. Initially, he was a suspect, but even though police released him, his wife and then his son held him responsible. Several years later, the family split up and the devastated father tried to kill himself.

Finally, years later, DNA tied Andrzej Kunowski to Katerina’s murder and the rape of 30 children and young women in Poland and Britain completely vindicating the wronged father in the eyes of his family.

Arthur Gary Bishop
Utah Mormon bookkeeper’s compulsion for child pornography escalates to the abduction, torture and murder of five children.

Atlanta Child Murders
In the 1970s Atlanta was one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. A series of murders of black children and teenagers began to emerge, throwing an unwelcome spotlight on the entire city. The murders, believed at that time, to be the work of a racist white group did nothing to recommend the city to tourists and new business opportunities.

Two black boys were found murdered at the end of July 1979, officially starting one of the most highly publicized murder series in history. A couple of years later, 29 black youths would be dead and a black man, Wayne Williams, who many people believe was railroaded by the government, would be imprisoned for life. Recent efforts to vindicate Williams have stalled.

Carl Panzram
A remorseless, vicious killer, a child rapist, a man with no soul who was the essence of evil. The shocking two-part story of this monster who hated the human race, one of America’s most ferocious, unrepentant serial killers.

Child Abduction — Analysis of This Crime and Major Cases
Child Abduction is a very complex crime and requires immediate action on the part of police, citizens and the media. Detective Mark Gado examines the nature of this crime, its frequency, the types of perpetrators and what is being done.

Child Molesters
Incidences of sexual assaults against children have risen when compared with previous decades, and children are increasingly kidnapped by family acquaintances (27%) and strangers (24%) instead of close relatives. Yet more than 90% of sex offenders are never sentenced, in part because their victims are people within their circles usually family members and these children are pressured with threat or shame not to press charges.

Who are these people and what are their motives? Can they be treated effectively so that they no longer present a danger to society? Or are they like drug addicts? Are there any viable alternatives?

Clifford Olson
One of Canada’s worst criminals graduates from petty thief into a prolific child murderer who terrorized Vancouver suburbs in the early 1980s. To make matters worse, he cut a $100,000 deal with the cops to show where he had buried the bodies.

Coral Eugene Watts
Police work frantically to prevent prolific serial killer from being released. New information.

Dean Corll
Did this closet homosexual really kill 27 boys or was he the victim of drugged up young men who took advantage of his generosity? This is the true story of treachery, torture, mutilation and murder

Driven to Kill
An excerpt from top-selling author Gary C. King’s book that tells the grisly story of child killer Westley Allan Dodd.

Erno Soto
Mentally-ill man was a chief suspect after confessing to the “Charlie Chop-off” murders and sexual attacks on black boys in New York City’s Harlem area. While never convicted of the crimes, he remains incarcerated in a mental institution.

Etan Patz
Little boy is out of his mother’s site for a few minutes and disappears. The story of the first missing child to appear on a milk carton.

Father James Porter
Well-known crime author Michael Newton examines the amazing case of the priest who was accused of molesting over 200 children.

Gilles de Rais
Handsome nobleman was one of the most powerful men in France. Was he a psychopathic killer who killed hundreds of young boys for sexual pleasure or was he a hapless pawn in a political game he was ill-equipped to play?

Gordon Stewart Northcott: The Wineville Chicken Coop Murders
During the peak of the Jazz Age in booming southern California a series of child abductions and murders turned the Los Angeles area on its ear — not only for their brutality and horror, but because of the web of lies surrounding them, and because of what both the crimes and their investigation revealed about power and justice in the City of Angels.

Jesse Pomeroy
Barely a teenager, this warped boy got sexual gratification from torturing and murdering other children. Because of his tender years, he was not executed, but spent the rest of his 58 years in jail, mostly in solitary confinement.

Jessica Lunsford
Charming Florida child is abducted from her home by drugged out repeat sex offender John Couey who stashes her in his sister’s nearby trailer and rapes her repeatedly. When investigators come looking, he panics and buries her alive.

John Joubert
Young enlisted man murders boys and is convicted by forensic evidence. Sophisticated and beginning sleuths can follow the investigation and test their skills through short quizzes.

Joseph Edward Duncan III
Convicted child molester with a history of assaults on children going back to his teenage years, he is nonetheless released on bond when he again molests a youngster. This time, Duncan goes big time. He steals a car, goes to Idaho where stalks an entire family. Then he breaks in, brutally murders the adults and an older child and abducts the two younger children.

When Duncan tires of molesting the abducted boy, he kills him and throws him away. By sheer luck, the abducted girl gets the attention of people in a restaurant who recognize her from Amber Alerts and capture this serial killer and rescue the terrified child.

Kidnapped Children

Most children murdered during stranger kidnappings are killed within a few hours. A close look at this serious problem and what can be done about it.

Marc Dutroux
After serving 3 years of a 13-year sentence for the rape and abuse of 5 young girls, Belgian justice minister released him and a number of other sex offenders for good behavior. Two eight-year-old girls, kept in Dutrouxs dungeon starved to death while he was in prison.

Shortly after Dutroux’s release from jail, more young girls disappeared around neighborhoods where Dutroux owned houses. Police twice searched his houses, but not well. Hidden in a secret sound-proof dungeon in the basement, two girls yearned for freedom. Vital facts concerning the girls disappearances were kept from other police investigators.

Police ignored a tip that Dutroux offered a man between $3,000 and $5,000 to kidnap young girls, hold them for him in a dungeon and later sell them into prostitution. Dutroux’s own mother wrote prosecutors that her son had been keeping young girls in one of his houses. These vital clues about the missing girls were ignored. It would be another year before police would finally pay attention to what the informants had been telling them all along. During that year when nothing was done, other girls disappeared.

Marc Dutroux, a convicted pedophile, murderer and supposed leader of an international child pornography and prostitution ring, gained worldwide attention, not only because of the horrific nature of his crimes, but also the gross negligence and amateurism of police and government officials involved in the investigation. The Dutroux case caused such outrage in Belgium that it prompted one of the largest peacetime demonstrations since World War II and just about brought down the government.

Michael Mullen
Incensed by the horrific crimes of killer pedophile Joseph Edward Duncan III, he poses as FBI agent to gain access to house with three sex offenders, killing two of them for revenge. Are offender registries really protecting the public from monsters like Duncan?

Michel Fourniret
Suspected of murders of young women and children in France, Belgium and other European countries, he says he killed about 2 a year for a decade or more. An unbelievably botched French investigation and cover-up of potentially hi-level clients of a pedophile ring. A key investigator who would have exposed this scandal was killed just before the court presentation and his death made to look like a suicide. This case when it comes to trial will echo the Belgian government scandal with the Marc Dutroux case.

Murder on the Moors
Saddleworth Moor, its long stretches of rugged earth, punctuated by steep valleys, sprawling hills, and rocky streams, was the silent witness of one of Britain’s worst serial murders. Every few months another child would mysteriously disappear as he or she walked the moors between the villages. And so it might have continued for many more years had Myra Hindley’s brother-in-law not seen Ian Brady take an axe to one of his young victims.

It was a real shocker in an era that could not imagine a woman participating in the brutal murder of children. Myra and Ian were the prototypes for Fred and Rose West, Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka and the other twisted partners in murder that followed them.

Pedro Lopez
“The Monster of the Andes” murdered some 300 or more little girls as he roamed the poor neighborhoods of Ecuador, Colombia and Peru. He boasts now that he is the “Man of the Century,” that no one will ever forget.

Richard Allen Davis
It was in Polly’s bedroom in an affluent California suburb that three girls were having a slumber party. The girls were giggling and playing a board game called Perfect Match when Polly decided it was time to fetch her friends’ sleeping bags from the living room. She opened the bedroom door and saw a heavily muscled middle-aged man who was a complete stranger. He was holding a knife and immediately ordered, “Don’t scream or Ill cut your throats!” “I’m not going to hurt you,” he assured them.

“I’m just doing this for the money,” he repeated. Then career criminal and rapist Richard Allen Davis carried 12-year-old Polly out of her home, raped and murdered her. This horrible ordeal has inspired hundreds of people to work on behalf of America’s children, most prominently her father, Marc Klaas.

Now in a weird turn of events, John Mark Karr, who has connected himself to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, was also obsessed with this brutal crime and had corresponded with Richard Allen Davis in prison.

Robert Black
Britain’s most shocking murderer cultivated an obsession with the vaginas of young girls. After his arrest in 1990 police found photographs that Black had taken of himself: one showed him with a wine-bottle up his anus, another with a telephone-handset, yet another with a table leg. Black explained to the incredulous officers that he wanted to see just how much he could fit up there. He also always had an uneasy feeling that he would have preferred to have been a girl – although there was certainly nothing feminine about his behavior – he simply hated his penis and would have preferred to have had a vagina.

When he was 15, he molested between 30-40 girls. After his release from prison, Black left Scotland where he was getting too well-known, and where his police record was expanding. It was time to go south, to the anonymity of London. Although he avoided any criminal convictions in the 1970s his obsession with young girls was growing, fuelled by his discovery of child pornography.

Robert Zarinsky
While he’s in prison, his sister embezzles money from him. She makes a deal with prosecutors for leniency in exchange for info proving her brother killed a cop and is a sexual predator.

Soham Murders
Two beautiful 10-year-old girls are killed by the caretaker in their school – a man with many sexual assault accusations.

Stewart Wilken
South African serial killer is unusual in choosing both female prostitutes and adolescent boys as victims.

The Slaughter of Innocence
NY Detective Mark Gado delves into the secret criminal world of pedophiles and child molesters: how it operates under the radar screens of law enforcement and communities; ways to identify these people and what to do to stop them from violating your children.

Ward Weaver III
Violent alcoholic rapist and murder has father on death row convicted of rape and murder. Is Ward Weaver III the bad seed of a bad seed or was his admiration of his father the main factor behind his criminality?

Westley Allan Dodd
A parent’s worst nightmare, this monster carefully planned the execution of little boys, stalked and abducted them and then tortured and murdered them. How do we know? He videotaped it all and kept a detailed journal. Don’t miss “Driven to Kill”, our excerpt from top-selling author Gary C. King’s book that tells this grisly story.

Dodd began sexually abusing children when he was only 13 years old. As grade schoolers passed by his house, he stood in the upstairs bedroom window, naked, hiding his face behind the curtain – Crime Library


TED BUNDY

$
0
0

Theodore (Ted) Bundy was wanted for questioning in as many as 36 murders in Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Florida and Washington. In June 1977, the FBI initiated a fugitive investigation when Ted Bundy escaped from a Colorado courthouse where he was on trial for murder. He was recaptured but escaped again, in December 1977, from the Garfield County Jail in Colorado. He was placed on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted Fugitives” list and was subsequently arrested, using an alias, by the local authorities in Florida for a stolen car violation in February 1978. In 1979, he was sentenced to death and in 1989 executed for the murder of two Florida State University sorority sisters.

Summary:

On November 7, 1974, Carol DeRonch, 18, was in a Utah Shopping Mall when she was approached by Bundy, who told her that someone had been trying to break into her automobile. She thought that he was a police officer and Bundy later showed her a badge.

Bundy asked her to accompany him to the car to see if anything was missing. Upon reaching the car the girl looked in and determined nothing was missing. He eventually asked her if she could go to the station to make a complaint. Bundy drove her in his Volkswagon, and pulled over on the way and forcibly placed a pair of handcuffs on her wrist. She screamed and fought her way outside the vehicle and eventually got away.

Nine months later, Bundy was arrested fleeing police and handcuffs were found in his car. Bundy was convicted of Aggravated Kidnapping after waiving a jury trial and received a 1-15 year sentence. He escaped while in custody but was recaptured 6 days later. He escaped a second time and fled to Tallahassee, Florida, staying at a rooming house near the Florida State University Campus.

During the early morning hours of Sunday, January 15, 1978, Bundy entered the Chi Omega sorority house and brutally attacked four women residing there. Margaret Bowman and Lisa Levy were killed, and Kathy Kleiner and Karen Chandler sustained serious injuries. Within approximately an hour of the attacks in the Chi Omega house, Bundy entered another home nearby and attacked a woman residing there, Cheryl Thomas. All five women were university students. All were bludgeoned repeatedly with a blunt weapon.

Bundy was identified by a resident returning home to the Sorority House, just as he was leaving with a club in his hand. Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman were killed by strangulation after receiving severe beatings with a length of a tree branch used as a club. Margaret Bowman’s skull was crushed and literally laid open. The attacker also bit Lisa Levy with sufficient intensity to be identified as human bite marks.

Bundy was arrested a month later in Pensacola. Of critical importance was the testimony of two forensic dental experts who testified concerning analysis of the bite mark left on the body of Lisa Levy. The experts both expressed to the jury their opinion that the indentations on the victim’s body were left by the unique teeth of Bundy. Bundy was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and two counts of burglary. For the two crimes of first-degree murder the trial judge imposed sentences of death.

On February 9, 1978, Kimberly Leach, age 12, was reported missing from her junior high school in Lake City, Florida. Two months later, after a large scale search, the Leach girl’s partially decomposed body was located in a wooded area near the Suwanee River.

There were semen stains in the crotch of her panties found near the body. Two Lake City Holiday Inn employees and a handwriting expert established that Bundy had registered at the Lake City Holiday Inn the day before her disappearance under another name. A school crossing guard at the junior high school identified Bundy as leading a young girl to a van on the morning of the disappearance.

Bundy was again convicted of murder and sentenced to death. This death sentence to be carried out a decade later.

Citations:

State v. Bundy, 589 P.2d 760 (Utah 1978) (Direct Appeal).
Bundy v. State, 455 So.2d 330 (Fla. 1984) (Sorority House Direct Appeal).
Bundy v. State, 471 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1985) (Leach Direct Appeal).
Bundy v. Florida, 107 S.Ct. 295 (1986) (Cert. Denied).
Bundy v. State, 490 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1986). (Stay)
Bundy v. State, 497 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 1986) (State Habeas).
Bundy v. Dugger, 850 F.2d 1402 (11th Cir. 1988) (Habeas).
Bundy v. Dugger, 109 S.Ct. 849 (1989) (Cert. Denied).

Ted Bundy Victims List:

WASHINGTON
Lonnie Trumbull; Seattle (6/23/66)
Kathy Devine; Seattle (11/25/73)
Lynda Ann Healy; University of Washington (2/1/74)
Donna Manson; Evergreen St. College, Olympia (3/12/74)
Susan Rancourt; Central Washington St. College, Ellensburg (4/17/74)
Brenda Baker; Seattle (5/25/74)
Brenda Ball; Burien (6/1/74)
Georgeann Hawkins; University of Washington (6/11/74)
Janice Ott; Lake Sammamish St. Park (7/14/74)
Denise Naslund; Lake Sammamish St. Park (7/14/74)

OREGON
Kathy Parks; Oregon St. (5/6/74)

UTAH
Nancy Wilcox; (10/2/74)
Melissa Smith; Midvale (10/18/74)
Laura Aimee; Lehi (10/31/74)
Debbie Kent; Bountiful (11/8/74)
Susan Curtis; Brigham Young University (6/28/75)
Nancy Baird; Layton (7/4/75)
Debbie Smith; Salt Lake City (2/?/76)

COLORADO
Caryn Campbell; Aspen (1/12/75)
Julie Cunningham; Vail (3/15/75)
Denise Oliverson; Grand Junction (4/6/75)
Melanie Cooley; Nederland (4/15/75)
Shelley Robertson; Golden (7/1/75)

IDAHO
Lynette Culver; Pocatello (5/6/75)
Jane Doe; Boise (9/21/74)

FLORIDA
Lisa Levy; Tallahassee (1/15/78)
Margaret Bowman; Tallahassee (1/15/74)
Kimberly Ann Leach; Lake City (2/9/78)

Serial Killers A-Z

Ted Bundy Timeline:

11/24/46 – Is born as Theodore Robert Cowell in a home for unwed mothers in Burlington, Vermont.

05/19/51 – Bundy’s mother, Louise, marries Johnnie Bundy and her son takes his step-father’s last name.

Spring 1965 – Graduates from Woodrow Wilson High School in Tacoma, Washington.

Fall 1965 – Enrolls at the University of Puget Sound and attends the school until the Spring of 1966.

06/23/65 – Murders Lonnie Trumbull and seriously injuresroommate Lisa Wick in their Seattle apartment.

Fall 1966 to Spring 1969 – Attends the University of Washington.

1967 to 1968 – Courts Stephanie Brooks, who closely resembles his future victims.

Fall 1968 – Brooks breaks off relationship with Bundy.

Early 1969 – Visits his brithtown of Burlington, Vermont, and learns for certain that he is illegitimate.

Fall 1969 – Re-enters Univ of Washington and meets Liz Kendall, his girlfriend throughout most of the murders.

Spring 1973 – Graduates form the University of Washington.

11/25/73 – Abducts Kathy Devine from a Seattle street corner.

12/06/73 – Devine’s body is found near Olympia, Washington.

01/05/74 – Attacks Joni Lenz in her Seattle apartment. Lenz survives.

02/01/74 – Abducts Lynda Ann Healy from her basement bedroom in Seattle.

03/12/74 – Abducts Donna Manson from the campus of Evergreen College.

04/17/74 – Abducts Susan Rancourt from the Central Washignton St. campus.

05/06/74 – Abducts Kathy Parks from the campus at Oregon St.

06/01/74 – Abducts Brenda Ball from Burien, Washington.

06/11/74 – Abducts Georgeann Hawkins from an alley near her University of Washington fraternity house.

06/17/74 – Brenda Baker’s body is found in Millersylvania St. Park. It is unknown when she was abducted.

07/14/74 – In seperate incidents, Janice Ott and Denise Naslund are abducted from Lake Samm St. Park.

09/02/74 – A Jane Doe is abducted from Boise, Idaho.

Fall 1974 – Enters the University of Utah Law School.

09/07/74 – Body parts of Ott, Naslund, and Hawkins are recovered 2 miles from lake Samm St. Park.

10/02/74 – Abducts Nancy Wilcox.

10/18/74 – Abducts Melissa Smith from Midvale, Utah.

10/27/74 – Smith’s body is found in Summitt Park near Salt Lake City, Utah.

10/31/74 – Abducts Laura Aimee from Lehi, Utah.

11/08/74 – Botches abduction of Carol DeRonch but abducts Debby Kent later that day from school in Bountiful.

Thanksgiving 1974 – Aimee’s body is found.

01/12/75 – Abducts Caryn Campbell from a hotel in Aspen, Colorado.

02/18/75 – Campbell’s body is found near the motel she disappeared from.

03/03/75 – The skulls of Healy, Ball, Parks, and Rancourt are found near Taylor Mountain in Washington.

03/15/75 – Abducts Julie Cunningham from Vail, Colorado.

04/06/75 – Abducts Melanie Cooley from her school in Nederland, Colorado.

04/23/75 – Cooley is found dead twenty miles from Nederland.

05/06/75 – Abducts Lynette Culver from her school playground in Pocatello, Idaho.

06/28/75 – Abducts Susan Curtis from the campus of BYU while attending a youth conference.

07/01/75 – Abducts Shelley Robertson from Golden, Colorado.

07/04/75 – Abducts Nancy Baird from Layton, Utah.

08/16/75 – Arrested for possession of burglary tools during a traffic stop in Salt Lake City.

February 1976 – Abducts Debbie Smith in Utah.

03/01/76 – Is found guilty of aggravated kidnapping in the DeRonch attack.

04/01/76 – Smith’s body is found at Salt Lake International Airport.

06/30/76 – Sentenced to 1-15 years in prison.

06/07/77 – Escapes from Pitkin Co. Law Library in Colorado while preparing for trial in the Campbell murder.

06/13/77 – Is apprehended in Aspen, Colorado.

12/30/77 – Escapes from Garfield County Jail in Colorado and flees to Tallahassee, Florida.

01/14/78 – Enters Chi Omega sorority house in Tallahassee, killing Lisa Levy and Magaret Bowman.

01/14/78 – Also attacks Cheryl Thomas in her house nearby, seriously injuring her.

02/09/78 – Abducts Kimberly Ann Leach from her school in Lake City, Florida.

02/15/78 – Arrested while driving a stolen VW in Pensacola, Florida.

04/12/79 – Leach’s body is found in Suwanee St. Park in Florida.

07/27/78 – Indicted for the murders of Levy and Bowman.

07/31/78 – Indicted for the Leach murder.

07/07/79 – Leach and Bowman murder trial begins.

07/23/79 – Found guilty of the murders of Levy and Bowman.

07/31/79 – Sentenced to death for the murders of Levy and Bowman.

01/07/80 – Trial begins for the Leach murder.

02/06/80 – Found guilty of Leach murder.

02/09/80 – Sentenced to death for Leach murder.

07/02/86 – Obtains a stay of execution only fifteen minutes before he is scheduled to die.

11/18/86 – Obtains a stay of execution only seven hours before he is scheduled to die.

11/17/89 – Final death warrant is issued.

01/24/89 – Executed in the electric chair at 7:16 AM.

Theodore Robert Bundy, born Theodore Robert Cowell (November 24, 1946 – January 24, 1989), known as Ted Bundy, was an American serial killer. Bundy murdered numerous young women across the United States between 1974 and 1978. He twice escaped from prison before his final apprehension in Feburary 1978. After more than a decade of vigorous denials, he eventually confessed to 30 murders, although the actual total of victims remains unknown. Estimates range from 29 to over 100, the general estimate being 35. Typically, Bundy would bludgeon his victims, then strangle them to death. He also engaged in rape and necrophilia.

Early life

Childhood

Bundy was born at the Elizabeth Lund Home For Unwed Mothers in Burlington, Vermont, to Eleanor Louise Cowell. While the identity of his father remains a mystery, Bundy’s birth certificate lists a “Lloyd Marshall” (b. 1916), although Bundy’s mother would later tell of being seduced by a war veteran named “Jack Worthington”.

Bundy’s family did not believe this story, however, and expressed suspicion about Louise’s violent, abusive father, Samuel Cowell. To avoid social stigma, Bundy’s maternal grandparents, Samuel and Eleanor Cowell, claimed him as their son; in taking their last name, he became Theodore Robert Cowell. He grew up believing that his mother was his older sister. Bundy biographers Stephen Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth wrote that he learned Louise was actually his mother while he was in high school. True crime writer Ann Rule, who knew Bundy personally, states that it was around 1969, shortly following a traumatic breakup with his college girlfriend.

For the first few years of his life, Bundy and his mother lived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In 1950, Bundy and his mother, whom he still believed was his sister, moved to live with relatives in Tacoma, Washington. Here, Louise Cowell had her son’s surname changed from Cowell to Nelson.

In 1951, one year after their move, Louise Cowell met Johnny Culpepper Bundy at an adult singles night held at Tacoma’s First Methodist Church. In May of that year, the couple were married, and soon after Johnny Bundy adopted Ted, legally changing his last name to “Bundy”.

Johnny and Louise Bundy had more children, whom the young Bundy spent much of his time babysitting. Johnny Bundy tried to include his stepson in camping trips and other father-son activities, but the boy remained emotionally detached from his stepfather. Bundy was a good student at Woodrow Wilson High School, in Tacoma, and was active in a local Methodist church, serving as vice-president of the Methodist Youth Fellowship. He was involved with a local troop of the Boy Scouts of America.

Socially, Bundy remained shy and introverted throughout his high school and early college years. He would say later that he “hit a wall” in high school and that he was unable to understand social behavior, stunting his social development. He maintained a facade of social activity, but he had no natural sense of how to get along with other people, saying: “I didn’t know what made things tick. I didn’t know what made people want to be friends. I didn’t know what made people attractive to one another. I didn’t know what underlay social interactions.”

Years later, while on Florida’s death row, Bundy would describe a part of himself that, from a young age, was fascinated by images of sex and violence. In early prison interviews, Bundy called this part of himself “the entity”. While still in his teens, Bundy would look through libraries for detective magazines and books on crime, focusing on sources that described sexual violence and featured pictures of dead bodies and violent sexuality. Before he was even out of high school, Bundy was a compulsive thief, a shoplifter, and on his way to becoming an amateur criminal. To support his love of skiing, Bundy stole skis and equipment and forged ski-lift tickets. He was arrested twice as a juvenile, although these records were later expunged.

University years

In 1965, Bundy graduated from Woodrow Wilson High. Awarded a scholarship by the University of Puget Sound (UPS), he began that fall, taking courses in psychology and Oriental studies. After two semesters at UPS, he decided to transfer to Seattle’s University of Washington (UW).

While a university student, Bundy worked as a grocery bagger and shelf-stocker at a Seattle Safeway store on Queen Anne Hill, as well as other odd jobs. As part of his course of studies in psychology, he would later work as a night-shift volunteer at Seattle’s Suicide Hot Line, a suicide crisis center that served the greater Seattle metropolitan and suburban areas. There, he met and worked alongside former Seattle policewoman and fledgling crime writer Ann Rule, who would later write a biography of Bundy and his crimes, The Stranger Beside Me.

He began a relationship with fellow university student “Stephanie Brooks” (a pseudonym), whom he met while enrolled at UW in 1967. Following her 1968 graduation and return to her family home in California, she ended the relationship, fed up with what she described as Bundy’s immaturity and lack of ambition. Rule states that, around this time, Bundy decided to pay a visit to his birthplace, Burlington, Vermont. There, according to Rule, he visited the local records clerk and finally uncovered the truth of his parentage.

After his discovery, Bundy became a more focused and dominant person. In 1968, he managed the Seattle office of Nelson Rockefeller’s Presidential campaign and attended the 1968 Republican convention in Miami, Florida as a Rockefeller supporter. He re-enrolled at UW, this time with a major in psychology. Bundy became an honors student and was well liked by his professors. In 1969, he started dating Elizabeth Kloepfer, a divorced secretary with a daughter, who fell deeply in love with him. They would continue dating for more than six years, until he went to prison for kidnapping in 1976.

Bundy graduated in 1972 from UW with a degree in psychology. Soon afterward, he again went to work for the state Republican Party, which included a close relationship with Gov. Daniel J. Evans. During the campaign, Bundy followed Evans’ Democratic opponent around the state, tape recording his speeches and reporting back to Evans personally. A minor scandal later followed when the Democrats found out about Bundy, who had been posing as a college student.

In the fall of 1973, Bundy enrolled in the law school at the University of Utah, but he did poorly. He began skipping classes, finally dropping out in the spring of 1974.

While on a business trip to California in the summer of 1973, Bundy came back into his ex-girlfriend “Stephanie Brooks”‘ life with a new look and attitude; this time as a serious, dedicated professional who had been accepted to law school. Bundy continued to date Kloepfer as well, and neither woman was aware the other existed. Bundy courted Brooks throughout the rest of the year, and she accepted his marriage proposal. Two weeks later, however, shortly after New Year’s 1974, he unceremoniously dumped her, refusing to return her phone calls. A few weeks after this breakup, Bundy began a murderous rampage in Washington state.

Murders

Washington state

No one knows exactly where and when Bundy began killing. Many Bundy experts, including Rule and former King County detective Robert D. Keppel, believe Bundy may have started killing as far back as his early teens. Ann Marie Burr, an eight-year-old girl from Tacoma, vanished from her home in 1961, when Bundy was 14 years old, though Bundy always denied killing her. The day before his execution, Bundy told his lawyer that he made his first attempt to kidnap a woman in 1969, and implied that he committed his first actual murder sometime in 1972. At one point in his death-row confessions with Keppel, Bundy said he committed his first murder in 1972.

In 1973, one of Bundy’s Republican Party friends saw a pair of handcuffs in the back of Bundy’s Volkswagen. He was for many years a suspect in the December 1973 murder of Kathy Devine in Washington state, but DNA analysis led to another man’s arrest and conviction for that crime in 2002. Bundy’s earliest known, identified murders were committed in 1974, when he was 27.

Shortly after midnight on January 4, 1974, Bundy entered the basement bedroom of 18-year-old “Joni Lenz” (pseudonym), a dancer and student at UW. Bundy bludgeoned her with a metal rod from her bed frame while she slept and sexually assaulted her with a speculum. Lenz was found the next morning by her roommates in a coma and lying in a pool of her own blood. She survived the attack but suffered permanent brain damage.

Bundy’s next victim was Lynda Ann Healy, another UW student (and his cousin’s roommate). In the early morning hours of February 1, 1974, Bundy broke into Healy’s room, knocked her unconscious, dressed her in jeans and a shirt, wrapped her in a bed sheet, and carried her away.

Co-eds began disappearing at a rate of roughly one a month. On March 12, 1974, in Olympia, Bundy kidnapped and murdered Donna Gail Manson, a 19-year-old student at The Evergreen State College.

On April 17, 1974, Susan Rancourt disappeared from the campus of Central Washington State College (CWSC) in Ellensburg. Later, two different CWSC co-eds would recount meeting a man with his arm in a cast—one that night, one three nights earlier—who asked for their help to carry a load of books to his Volkswagen Beetle.

Next was Kathy Parks, last seen on the campus of Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon, on May 6, 1974. Brenda Ball was never seen again after leaving The Flame Tavern in Burien on June 1, 1974. Bundy then murdered Georgeann Hawkins, a student at UW and a member of Kappa Alpha Theta, an on-campus sorority. In the early morning hours of June 11, 1974, she walked through an alley from her boyfriend’s dormitory residence to her sorority house. She was never seen again. Witnesses later reported seeing a man with a leg cast struggling to carry a briefcase in the area that night.[34] One co-ed reported that the man had asked for her help in carrying the briefcase to his car, a Beetle.

Bundy’s Washington killing spree culminated on July 14, 1974, with the daytime abduction of Janice Ott and Denise Naslund from Lake Sammamish State Park in Issaquah. That day, eight different people told the police about the handsome young man with his left arm in a sling who called himself “Ted”. Five of them were women whom “Ted” asked for help unloading a sailboat from his Beetle. One of them went with “Ted” as far as his car, where there was no sailboat, before declining to accompany him any farther. Three more witnesses testified to seeing him approach Ott with the story about the sailboat and to seeing her walk away from the beach in his company. She was never seen alive again. Naslund disappeared without a trace four hours later.

King County detectives now had a description both of the suspect and his car. Some witnesses told investigators that the “Ted” they encountered spoke with a clipped, British-like accent. Soon, fliers were up all over the Seattle area. After seeing the police sketch and description of the Lake Sammamish suspect in both of the local newspapers and on television news reports, Bundy’s girlfriend, one of his psychology professors at UW, and former co-worker Ann Rule all reported him as a possible suspect. The police, receiving up to 200 tips per day, did not pay any special attention to a tip about a clean-cut law student.

The fragmented remains of Ott and Naslund were discovered on September 7, 1974, off Interstate 90 near Issaquah, one mile from the park. Found along with the women’s remains was an extra femur bone and vertebrae, which Bundy would identify as that of Georgeann Hawkins shortly before his execution.

Between March 1 and March 3, 1975, the skulls and jawbones of Healy, Rancourt, Parks and Ball were found on Taylor Mountain just east of Issaquah. Years later, Bundy claimed that he had also dumped Donna Manson’s body there, but no trace of her was ever found.

Utah and Colorado

Bundy smiles for the cameras and pleads “Not guilty” during a press conference announcing his indictment on first degree murder charges.

That autumn, Bundy began attending the University of Utah law school in Salt Lake City, where he resumed killing in October. Nancy Wilcox disappeared from Holladay, Utah, on October 2, 1974. Wilcox was last seen riding in a Volkswagen Beetle.

On October 18, 1974, Bundy murdered Melissa Smith, the 17-year-old daughter of Midvale police chief Louis Smith; Bundy raped, sodomized and strangled her. Her body was found nine days later. Next was Laura Aime, also 17, who disappeared when she left a Halloween party in Lehi, Utah, on October 31, 1974; her naked, beaten and strangled corpse was found nearly a month later by hikers on Thanksgiving Day, on the banks of a river in American Fork Canyon.

In Murray, Utah, on November 8, 1974, Carol DaRonch narrowly escaped with her life. Claiming to be Officer Roseland of the Murray Police Department, Bundy approached her at the Fashion Place Mall, told her someone had tried to break into her car, and asked her to accompany him to the police station. She got into his car but refused his instruction to buckle her seat belt. They drove for a short period before Bundy suddenly pulled to the shoulder and attempted to slap a pair of handcuffs on her. In the struggle, he fastened both loops to the same wrist. Bundy whipped out his crowbar, but DaRonch caught it in the air just before it would have cracked her skull. She then got the door open and tumbled out onto the highway, thus escaping from her would-be killer.

About an hour later, a strange man showed up at Viewmont High School in Bountiful, Utah, where the drama club was putting on a play. He approached the drama teacher and then a student, asking both to come out to the parking lot to identify a car. Both declined. The drama teacher saw him again shortly before the end of the play, this time breathing hard, with his hair mussed and his shirt untucked. Another student saw the man lurking in the rear of the auditorium. Debby Kent, a 17-year-old Viewmont High student, left the play at intermission to go and pick up her brother, and was never seen again. Later, investigators found a small key in the parking lot outside Viewmont High. It
unlocked the handcuffs taken off Carol DaRonch.

In 1975, while still attending law school at the University of Utah, Bundy shifted his crimes to Colorado. On January 12, 1975, Caryn Campbell disappeared from the Wildwood Inn at Snowmass, Colorado, where she had been vacationing with her fiancé and his children. She vanished somewhere in a span of 50 feet between the elevator doors and her room. Her body was found on February 17, 1975.

Next, Vail ski instructor Julie Cunningham disappeared on March 15, 1975, and Denise Oliverson in Grand Junction on April 6, 1975. While in prison, Bundy confessed to Colorado investigators that he used crutches to approach Cunningham, after asking her to help him carry some ski boots to his car. At the car, Bundy clubbed her with his crowbar and immobilized her with handcuffs, later strangling her in a crime highly similar to the Hawkins murder.

Lynette Culver went missing in Pocatello, Idaho, on May 6, 1975, from the grounds of her junior high school. After his return to Utah, Susan Curtis vanished on June 28, 1975. (Bundy confessed to the Curtis murder minutes before his execution.) The bodies of Cunningham, Culver, Curtis and Oliverson have never been recovered.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, investigators were attempting to prioritize their enormous list of suspects. They used computers to cross-check different likely lists of suspects (classmates of Lynda Healy, owners of Volkswagens, etc) against each other, and then identify suspects who turned up on more than one list. “Theodore Robert Bundy” was one of 25 people who turned up on four separate lists, and his case file was second on the “To Be Investigated” pile when the call came from Utah of an arrest.

Arrest, first trial, and escapes

Bundy was arrested on August 16, 1975, in Salt Lake City, for failure to stop for a police officer. A search of his car revealed a ski mask, a crowbar, handcuffs, trash bags, an icepick, and other items that were thought by the police to be burglary tools. Bundy remained calm during questioning, explaining that he needed the mask for skiing and had found the handcuffs in a dumpster. Utah detective Jerry Thompson connected Bundy and his Volkswagen to the DaRonch kidnapping and the missing girls, and searched his apartment.

The search uncovered a brochure of Colorado ski resorts, with a check mark by the Wildwood Inn where Caryn Campbell had disappeared. After searching his apartment, the police brought Bundy in for a lineup before DaRonch and the Bountiful witnesses. They identified him as “Officer Roseland” and as the man lurking about the night Debby Kent disappeared.

Following a week-long trial, Bundy was convicted of DaRonch’s kidnapping on March 1, 1976, and was sentenced to 15 years in Utah State Prison. Colorado authorities were pursuing murder charges, however, and Bundy was extradited there to stand trial.

On June 7, 1977, in preparation for a hearing in the Caryn Campbell murder trial, Bundy was taken to the Pitkin County courthouse in Aspen. During a court recess, he was allowed to visit the courthouse’s law library, where he jumped out of the building from a second-story window and escaped, but sprained his right ankle during the jump. In the minutes following his escape, Bundy at first ran and then strolled casually through the small town toward Aspen Mountain.

He made it all the way to the top of Aspen Mountain without being detected, where he rested for two days in an abandoned hunting cabin. But afterwards, he lost his sense of direction and wandered around the mountain, missing two trails that led down off the mountain to his intended destination, the town of Crested Butte. At one point, he came face-to-face with a gun-toting citizen who was one of the searchers scouring Aspen Mountain for Ted Bundy, but talked his way out of danger.

On June 13, 1977, Bundy stole a car he found on the mountain. He drove back into Aspen and could have gotten away, but two police deputies noticed the Cadillac with dimmed headlights weaving in and out of its lane and pulled Bundy over. They recognized him and took him back to jail. Bundy had been on the lam for six days.

He was back in custody, but Bundy worked on a new escape plan. He was being held in the Glenwood Springs, Colorado, jail while he awaited trial. He had acquired a hacksaw blade and $500 in cash; he later claimed the blade came from another prison inmate. Over two weeks, he sawed through the welds fixing a small metal plate in the ceiling and, after dieting down still further, was able to fit through the hole and access the crawl space above.

An informant in the prison told guards that he had heard Bundy moving around the ceiling during the nights before his escape, but the matter was not investigated. When Bundy’s Aspen trial judge ruled on December 23, 1977, that the Caryn Campbell murder trial would start on January 9, 1978, and changed the venue to Colorado Springs, Bundy realized that he had to make his escape before he was transferred out of the Glenwood Springs jail.

On the night of December 30, 1977, Bundy dressed warmly and packed books and files under his blanket to make it look like he was sleeping. He wriggled through the hole and up into the crawlspace. Bundy crawled over to a spot directly above the jailer’s linen closet — the jailer and his wife were out for the evening — dropped down into the jailer’s apartment, and walked out the door.

Bundy was free, but he was on foot in the middle of a bitterly cold, snowy Colorado night. He stole a broken-down MG, but it stalled out in the mountains. Bundy was stuck on the side of Interstate 70 in the middle of the night in a blizzard, but another driver gave him a ride into Vail. From there he caught a bus to Denver and boarded the TWA 8:55 a.m. flight to Chicago. The Glenwood Springs jail guards did not notice Bundy was gone until noon on December 31, 1977, 17 hours after his escape, by which time Bundy was already in Chicago.

Florida

Following his arrival in Chicago, Bundy then caught an Amtrak train to Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he got a room at the YMCA. On January 2, 1978, he went to an Ann Arbor bar and watched the University of Washington Huskies, the team of his alma mater, beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl. He later stole a car in Ann Arbor, which he abandoned in Atlanta, Georgia before boarding a bus for Tallahassee, Florida, where he arrived on January 8, 1978. There, he rented a room at a boarding house under the alias of “Chris Hagen” and committed numerous petty crimes including shoplifting, purse snatching, and auto theft. He stole a student ID card that belonged to a Kenneth Misner and sent away for copies of Misner’s Social Security card and birth certificate. He grew a mustache and drew a fake mole on his right cheek when he went out, but aside from that, he made no real attempt at a disguise. Bundy tried to find work at a construction site, but when the personnel officer asked Bundy for his driver’s license for identification, Bundy walked away. This was his only attempt at job hunting.

One week after Bundy’s arrival in Tallahassee, in the early hours of Super Bowl Sunday on January 15, 1978, two and a half years of repressed homicidal violence erupted. Bundy entered the Florida State University Chi Omega sorority house at approximately 3 a.m. and killed two sleeping women, Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman. Bundy bludgeoned and strangled Levy and Bowman; he also sexually assaulted Levy. He also bludgeoned two other Chi Omegas, Karen Chandler and Kathy Kleiner. The entire episode took no more than half an hour. After leaving the Chi Omega house, Bundy broke into another home a few blocks away, clubbing and severely injuring Florida State University student Cheryl Thomas.

On February 9, 1978, Bundy traveled to Lake City, Florida. While there, he abducted, raped, and murdered 12-year-old Kimberly Leach, throwing her body under a small pig shed. On February 12, 1978, Bundy stole yet another Volkswagen Beetle and left Tallahassee for good, heading west across the Florida panhandle.

On February 15, 1978, shortly after 1 a.m., Bundy was stopped by Pensacola police officer David Lee. When the officer called in a check of the license plate, the vehicle came up as stolen. Bundy then scuffled with the officer before he was finally subdued. As Lee took the unknown suspect to jail, Bundy said “I wish you had killed me.” At his booking Bundy gave the police the name Ken Misner (and presented stolen identification for Misner), but the Florida Department of Law Enforcement made a positive fingerprint identification early the next day. He was immediately transported to Tallahassee and subsequently charged with the Tallahassee and Lake City murders. He was later taken to Miami to stand trial for the Chi Omega murders.

Conviction and execution

Bite mark testimony at the Chi Omega trialBundy went to trial for the Chi Omega murders in June 1979, with Dade County Circuit Court Judge Edward D. Cowart presiding. Despite having five court-appointed lawyers, he insisted on acting as his own attorney and even cross-examined witnesses, including the police officer who had discovered Margaret Bowman’s body. He was prosecuted by Assistant State Attorney Larry Simpson.

Two pieces of evidence proved crucial. First, Chi Omega member Nita Neary, getting back to the house very late after a date, saw Bundy as he left, and identified him in court. Second, during his homicidal frenzy, Bundy bit Lisa Levy in her left buttock, leaving obvious bite marks. Police took plaster casts of Bundy’s teeth and a forensics expert matched them to the photographs of Levy’s wound. Bundy was convicted on all counts and sentenced to death. After confirming the sentence, Cowart gave him the verdict:

It is ordered that you be put to death by a current of electricity, that current be passed through your body until you are dead. Take care of yourself, young man. I say that to you sincerely; take care of yourself, please. It is an utter tragedy for this court to see such a total waste of humanity as I’ve experienced in this courtroom. You’re a bright young man. You’d have made a good lawyer, and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. Take care of yourself. I don’t feel any animosity toward you. I want you to know that. Once again, take care of yourself.

Bundy was tried for the Kimberly Leach murder in 1980. He was again convicted on all counts, principally due to fibers found in his van that matched Leach’s clothing and an eyewitness that saw him leading Leach away from the school, and sentenced to death. During the Kimberly Leach trial, Bundy married former coworker Carole Ann Boone in the courtroom while questioning her on the stand. Following numerous conjugal visits between Bundy and his new wife, Boone gave birth to a daughter in October 1982. However, in 1986 Boone moved back to Washington and never returned to Florida. Her whereabouts and those of Bundy’s daughter are unknown.

While awaiting execution in Starke Prison, Bundy was housed in the cell next to fellow serial killer Ottis Toole, the murderer of Adam Walsh. FBI profiler Robert K. Ressler met with him there as part of his work interviewing serial killers, but found Bundy uncooperative and manipulative, willing to speak only in the third person, and only in hypothetical terms. Writing in 1992, Ressler spoke of his impression of Bundy in comparison to his reviews of other serial killers: “This guy was an animal, and it amazed me that the media seemed unable to understand that.”

However, during the same period, Bundy was often visited by Special Agent William Hagmaier of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Behavioral Sciences Unit. Bundy would come to confide in Hagmaier, going so far as to call him his best friend. Eventually, Bundy confessed to Hagmaier many details of the murders that had until then been unknown or unconfirmed.

In October 1984, Bundy contacted former King County homicide detective Bob Keppel and offered to assist in the ongoing search for the Green River Killer by providing his own insights and analysis. Keppel and Green River Task Force detective Dave Reichert traveled to Florida’s death row to interview Bundy. Both detectives later stated that these interviews were of little actual help in the investigation; they provided far greater insight into Bundy’s own mind, however, and were primarily pursued in the hope of learning the details of unsolved murders which Bundy was suspected of committing.

Bundy mug shot, 1980, the day after he was sentenced to death for the murder of Kimberly LeachBundy contacted Keppel again in 1988. At that point, his appeals were exhausted. Bundy had beaten previous death warrants for March 4, 1986, July 2, 1986, and November 18, 1986. With execution imminent, Bundy confessed to eight official unsolved murders in Washington State for which he was the prime suspect. Bundy told Keppel that there were actually five bodies left on Taylor Mountain, not four as they had originally thought. Bundy confessed in detail to the murder of Georgeann Hawkins, describing how he lured her to his car, clubbed her with a tire iron that he had stashed on the ground under his car, drove away with her in the car with him, and later raped and strangled her.

After the interview, Keppel reported that he had been shocked in speaking with Bundy, and that he was the kind of man who was “born to kill.” Keppel stated:

He described the Issaquah crime scene (where Janice Ott, Denise Naslund, and Georgeann Hawkins had been left) and it was almost like he was just there. Like he was seeing everything. He was infatuated with the idea because he spent so much time there. He is just totally consumed with murder all the time.

Bundy had hoped that he could use the revelations and partial confessions to get another stay of execution or possibly commute his sentence to life imprisonment. At one point, a legal advocate working for Bundy asked many of the families of the victims to fax letters to Florida Governor Robert Martinez and ask for mercy for Bundy in order to find out where the remains of their loved ones were. All of the families refused. Keppel and others reported that Bundy gave scant detail about his crimes during his confessions, and promised to reveal more and other body dump sites if he were given “more time.” The ploy failed and Bundy was executed on schedule.

The night before Bundy was executed, he gave a television interview to James Dobson, head of the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family. During the interview, Bundy made repeated claims as to the pornographic “roots” of his crimes. He stated that, while pornography did not cause him to commit murder, the consumption of violent pornography helped “shape and mold” his violence into “behavior too terrible to describe.” He alleged that he felt that violence in the media, “particularly sexualized violence,” sent boys “down the road to being Ted Bundys.” In the same interview, Bundy stated:

“You are going to kill me, and that will protect society from me. But out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that.”

According to Hagmaier, Bundy contemplated suicide in the days leading up to his execution, but eventually decided against it.

At 7:06 a.m. local time on January 24, 1989, Ted Bundy was executed in the electric chair at Florida State Prison in Starke, Florida. His last words were, “I’d like you to give my love to my family and friends.” Then, more than 2,000 volts were applied across his body for less than two minutes. He was pronounced dead at 7:16 a.m. Several hundred people were gathered outside the prison and cheered when they saw the signal that Bundy had been declared dead.

Modus operandi and victim profiles

Bundy in custody, Leon County, FloridaBundy had a fairly consistent modus operandi. He would approach a potential victim in a public place, even in daylight or in a crowd, as when he abducted Ott and Naslund at Lake Sammamish or when he kidnapped Leach from her school. Bundy had various ways of gaining a victim’s trust. Sometimes, he would feign injury, wearing his arm in a sling or wearing a fake cast, as in the murders of Hawkins, Rancourt, Ott, Naslund, and Cunningham. At other times Bundy would impersonate an authority figure; he pretended to be a policeman when approaching Carol DaRonch. The day before he killed Kimberly Leach, Bundy approached another young Florida girl pretending to be “Richard Burton, Fire Department”, but left hurriedly after her older brother arrived.

Bundy had a remarkable advantage in that his facial features were attractive, yet not especially memorable. In later years, he would often be described as chameleon-like, able to look totally different by making only minor adjustments to his appearance, e.g., growing a beard or changing his hairstyle.

All of Bundy’s victims were white females and most were of middle class background. Almost all were between the ages of 15 and 25. Many were college students. In her book, Rule notes that most of Bundy’s victims had long straight hair parted in the middle—just like Stephanie Brooks, the woman to whom Bundy was engaged in 1973. Rule speculates that Bundy’s resentment towards his first girlfriend was a motivating factor in his string of murders. However, in a 1980 interview, Bundy dismissed this hypothesis: “[t]hey…just fit the general criteria of being young and attractive…Too many people have bought this crap that all the girls were similar — hair about the same color, parted in the middle…but if you look at it, almost everything was dissimilar…physically, they were almost all different.”

After luring a victim to his car, Bundy would hit her in the head with a crowbar he had placed underneath his Volkswagen or hidden inside it. Every recovered skull, except for that of Kimberly Leach, showed signs of blunt force trauma. Every recovered body, except for that of Leach, showed signs of strangulation.

Many of Bundy’s victims were transported a considerable distance from where they disappeared, as in the case of Kathy Parks, whom he drove more than 260 miles from Oregon to Washington. Bundy often would drink alcohol prior to finding a victim; Carol DaRonch testified to smelling alcohol on his breath.

Hagmaier stated that Bundy considered himself to be an amateur and impulsive killer in his early years, and then moved into what he considered to be his “prime” or “predator” phase. Bundy stated that this phase began around the time of the Lynda Healy murder, when he began seeking victims he considered to be equal to his skill as a murderer.

On death row, Bundy admitted to decapitating at least a dozen of his victims with a hacksaw. He kept the severed heads later found on Taylor Mountain (Rancourt, Parks, Ball, Healy) in his room or apartment for some time before finally disposing of them. He confessed to cremating Donna Manson’s head in his girlfriend’s fireplace. Some of the skulls of Bundy’s victims were found with the front teeth broken out. Bundy also confessed to visiting his victims’ bodies over and over again at the Taylor Mountain body dump site. He stated that he would lie with them for hours, applying makeup to their corpses and having sex with their decomposing bodies until putrefaction forced him to abandon the remains. Not long before his death, Bundy admitted to returning to the corpse of Georgeann Hawkins for purposes of necrophilia.

Bundy confessed to keeping other souvenirs of his crimes. The Utah police who searched Bundy’s apartment in 1975 missed a collection of photographs that Bundy had hidden in the utility room, photos that Bundy destroyed when he returned home after being released on bail. His girlfriend Elizabeth once found a bag in his room filled with women’s clothing.

When Bundy was confronted by law enforcement officers who stated that they believed the number of individuals he had murdered was 36, Bundy told them that they should “add one digit to that, and you’ll have it.” Rule speculated that this meant Bundy might have killed over 100 women. Speaking to his lawyer Polly Nelson in 1988, however, Bundy dismissed the 100+ victims speculation and said that the more common estimate of approximately 35 victims was accurate.

Pathology

In December 1987, Bundy was examined for seven hours by Dorothy Otnow Lewis, a professor from New York University Medical Center. Lewis diagnosed Bundy as a manic depressive whose crimes usually occurred during his depressive episodes. To Lewis, Bundy described his childhood, especially his relationship with his maternal grandparents, Samuel and Eleanor Cowell.

According to Bundy, grandfather Samuel Cowell was a deacon in his church. Along with the already established description of his grandfather as a tyrannical bully, Bundy described him as a bigot who hated blacks, Italians, Catholics, and Jews. He further stated that his grandfather tortured animals, beating the family dog and swinging neighborhood cats by their tails. He also told Lewis how his grandfather kept a large collection of pornography in his greenhouse where, according to relatives, Bundy and a cousin would sneak to look at it for hours.

Family members expressed skepticism over Louise’s “Jack Worthington” story of Bundy’s parentage and noted that Samuel Cowell once flew into a violent rage when the subject of the boy’s father came up. Bundy described his grandmother as a timid and obedient wife, who was sporadically taken to hospitals to undergo shock treatment for depression. Toward the end of her life, Bundy said, she became agoraphobic.

Louise Bundy’s younger sister Julia recalled a disturbing incident with her young nephew. After lying down in the Cowells’ home for a nap, Julia woke to find herself surrounded by knives from the Cowell kitchen. Three-year-old Ted was standing by the bed, smiling at her.

Bundy used stolen credit cards to purchase more than 30 pairs of socks while on the run in Florida; he was a self-described foot fetishist.

In the Dobson interview before his execution, Bundy said that violent pornography played a major role in his sex crimes. According to Bundy, as a young boy he found “outside the home again, in the local grocery store, in a local drug store, the soft core pornography that people called soft core…And from time to time we would come across pornographic books of a harder nature….”

Bundy said, “It happened in stages, gradually. My experience with pornography generally, but with pornography that deals on a violent level with sexuality, is once you become addicted to it — and I look at this as a kind of addiction like other kinds of addiction — I would keep looking for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far, you reach that jumping off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give that which is beyond just reading it or looking at it.”

In a letter written shortly before his escape from the Glenwood Springs jail, Bundy said “I have known people who…radiate vulnerability. Their facial expressions say ‘I am afraid of you.’ These people invite abuse… By expecting to be hurt, do they subtly encourage it?”

In a 1980 interview, speaking of a serial killer’s justification of his actions, Bundy said “So what’s one less? What’s one less person on the face of the planet?” When Florida detectives asked Bundy to tell them where he had left Kimberly Leach’s body for her family’s solace, Bundy allegedly said, “But I’m the most cold-hearted son of a bitch you’ll ever meet.”

Victims

Below is a chronological list of Ted Bundy’s known victims. Bundy never made a comprehensive confession of his crimes and his true total is not known, but before his execution, he confessed to Hagmaier to having committed 30 murders. Many of his victims remain unknown. All the women listed were killed, unless otherwise noted.

1973

May 1973: Unknown hitchhiker, Tumwater, Washington area. Confessed to Bob Keppel before Bundy’s execution. No remains found.

1974

January 4: Joni Lenz (pseudonym) (18, survived). University of Washington first-year student who was bludgeoned in her bed and impaled with a speculum as she slept.

February 1: Lynda Ann Healy (21). Bludgeoned while asleep and abducted from the house she shared with other University of Washington co-eds.

March 12: Donna Gail Manson (19). Abducted while walking to a jazz concert on the Evergreen State College campus, Olympia, Washington. Bundy confessed to her murder, but her body was never found.

April 17: Susan Elaine Rancourt (18). Disappeared as she walked across Ellensburg’s Central Washington State College campus at night.

May 6: Roberta Kathleen “Kathy” Parks (22). Vanished from Oregon State University in Corvallis while walking to another dorm hall to have coffee with friends.

June 1: Brenda Carol Ball (22). Disappeared from the Flame Tavern in Burien, Washington.

June 11: Georgeann Hawkins (18). Disappeared from behind her sorority house, Kappa Alpha Theta, at the University of Washington.

July 14: Janice Ann Ott (23) and Denise Marie Naslund (19). Abducted several hours apart from Lake Sammamish State Park in Issaquah, Washington.

September 2: Unknown teenage hitchhiker. Idaho. Confessed before his execution. No remains found.

October 2: Nancy Wilcox (16). Disappeared in Holladay, Utah. Her body was never found.

October 18: Melissa Smith (17). Vanished from Midvale, Utah, after leaving a pizza parlor.

October 31: Laura Aime (17). Disappeared from a Halloween party at Lehi, Utah.

November 8: Carol DaRonch (survived). Escaped from Bundy by jumping out from his car in Murray, Utah.

November 8: Debra “Debi” Kent (17). Vanished from the parking lot of a school in Bountiful, Utah, hours after DaRonch escaped from Bundy. Shortly before his execution, Bundy confessed to investigators that he dumped Kent at a site near Fairview, Utah. An intense search of the site produced one human bone — a knee cap — which matched the profile for someone of Kent’s age and size. DNA testing has not been attempted.

Bundy is a suspect in the murder of Carol Valenzuela, who disappeared from Vancouver, Washington, on August 2, 1974. Her remains were discovered two months later south of Olympia, Washington, along with those of an unidentified female.

1975

January 12: Caryn Campbell (23). Campbell, a Michigan nurse, vanished between her hotel lounge and room while on a ski trip with her fiancé in Snowmass, Colorado.

March 15: Julie Cunningham (26). Disappeared while on her way to a nearby tavern in Vail, Colorado. Bundy confessed to investigators that he buried Cunningham’s body near Rifle, Garfield County, Colorado, but a search did not produce remains.

April 6: Denise Oliverson (25). Abducted while bicycling to visit her parents in Grand Junction, Colorado. Bundy provided details of her murder, but her body was never found.

May 6: Lynette Culver (13). Snatched from a school playground at Alameda Junior High School in Pocatello, Idaho. Her body was never found.

June 28: Susan Curtis (15). Disappeared while walking alone to the dormitories during a youth conference at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Her body was never found.

Bundy is a suspect in the murder of Melanie Suzanne “Suzy” Cooley, who disappeared April 15, 1975, after leaving Nederland High School in Nederland, Colorado. Her bludgeoned and strangled corpse was discovered by road maintenance workers on May 2, 1975, in nearby Coal Creek Canyon. Gas receipts place Bundy in nearby Golden, the day of the Cooley abduction. The Jefferson County, Colorado, Sheriff’s Office has classified the Melanie Cooley murder as a cold
case.

1978

January 15: Lisa Levy (20), Margaret Bowman (21), Karen Chandler (survived), Kathy Kleiner Deshields (survived). The Chi Omega killings, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.

January 15: Cheryl Thomas (survived). Bludgeoned in her bed, eight blocks away from the Chi Omega Sorority house.

February 9: Kimberly Leach (12), kidnapped from her junior high school in Lake City, Florida. She was raped, murdered and discarded in Suwannee River State Park in Florida.

In film

Three TV movies and one feature film have been produced about Bundy and his crimes.

The Deliberate Stranger, a two-part TV movie, aired on NBC in 1986 and starred Mark Harmon as Bundy.

Ted Bundy, released in 2002, was directed by Matthew Bright. Michael Reilly Burke starred as Bundy.

The Stranger Beside Me aired on the USA Network in 2003, and starred Billy Campbell as Bundy and Barbara Hershey as Ann Rule.

In 2004, the A&E Network produced an adaptation of Robert Keppel’s book The Riverman, which starred Cary Elwes as Bundy and Bruce Greenwood as Keppel.

Wikipedia.org

The Depths of Depravity

Savvy Sociopath Changes Police Methods

By By Kevin Heldman – APB Online

NEW YORK (APBnews.com) — Ted Bundy was a young Republican, law student, avid skier, crisis hotline volunteer and the boy next door. He was also a cannibal, necrophiliac, charismatic sociopath and the man whose name came to define the term “serial killer” for the 20th century. Though there were at least 57 documented cases of serial killings in America since 1900, Bundy changed the landscape. The man who admitted to killing at least 30 women between 1973 and 1978 — some experts believe he killed more than a hundred — was a remarkable criminal in several ways.

“In 1974 when we had our first [Bundy] crime that we knew of, the phenomena just wasn’t very well known,” said Robert Keppel, a former homicide detective and author of The Riverman, an account of his search for Washington’s Green River Killer and his attempt to enlist Ted Bundy’s assistance. “What makes him unique from a lot of others is the range and the span with which he committed his murders across state lines, across the whole country,” Keppel said. Bundy killed in as many as 10 states, more than any serial killer in American history.

University of Louisville criminology professor Ronald M. Holmes, who spent two years corresponding with Bundy as well as interviewing him in prison, said Bundy’s propensity for travel corresponded with the advent of the nation’s interstate system and the increased reliability of transportation. Prior to Bundy, most serial killers murdered in their own backyards.

Bundy was the first to deviate significantly from that pattern, establishing the model for the modern-day multiple murderer. A new breed of killer – Bundy was a type of killer police hadn’t encountered before. They weren’t yet equipped to deal with him. “His case had a great effect on the way law enforcement collects information about killers,” Keppel said. “There was no central repository of murder information anywhere in the United States at that time.”

Although some experts disagree, Keppel said the Bundy case was instrumental in the development of VICAP (Violent Criminal Apprehension Program), an FBI database designed to collect and link information on serial homicides. The FBI began using VICAP in 1985.

Bundy’s geographical range left investigators with the laborious task of phoning individual police departments across the United States and combing through piles of disparate murder records. It was Bundy, by proxy, who taught the FBI the value of a central murder database. “It took my partner and I a year-and-a-half to collect information on over 90 murders in Western states,” said Keppel. “If everybody cooperated in the VICAP program and submitted their crimes, it would have been a matter of seconds.”

The media’s darling – Bundy, with a hand from the media, changed the face of the serial killer as well. According to Holmes, who has profiled more than 375 murder and rape cases, the public image of the serial killer before Bundy was the psychotic, demented freak with gross physical impairments.

“Then Bundy comes along and says, ‘Hey, I’m just like the guy next door — I’m the stranger beside you,’ ” he said, referring to the title of crime writer Ann Rule’s book about Bundy. Holmes said there were serial killers before Bundy who were just as charismatic, just as all-American, but they didn’t get the media representation Bundy did. “We serial killers are your sons, we are your husbands, we are everywhere,” Bundy is quoted in Harold Schechter’s book, The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. A Ph.D. in serial killing – Bundy called upon a potpourri of serial killer traits and a vast reserve of deviance. According to various accounts, he stored severed heads in his home, and was a loner who was simultaneously engaged to two women while he was killing.

He incinerated skulls in his fireplace and vacuumed up the ashes. He re-dressed dead victims, ate their flesh, feigned lameness to lure victims and faked accents. He kept one of his victims in his possession for nine days. He twice escaped from custody, was an experienced cat burglar and insisted on strangling his victims while he looked directly into their eyes.

Bundy looked upon serial killing as a macabre mixture of sport, craft and intellectual pursuit. A 1992 investigative report stated that Bundy went on dry runs, “picking up a woman and releasing her unharmed to test his skills.” In interviews, he compared killing to learning how to be a better repairman or cook. He told interviewers he had a Ph.D. in serial killing. Killed only the best victims – Perhaps Bundy’s most significant impact on the public consciousness was the breadth of his killing and the identities of his victims. Bundy didn’t kill prostitutes or drug dealers. He killed the police chief’s daughter. He killed pretty young college girls. His crimes caused outrage and led to nationwide media coverage. “He was killing the best and most attractive of the youth,” said Holmes. “He was killing college girls that were the future of America. They were very valuable victims.”

Serving as his own defense attorney, Bundy dragged out his execution for almost 11 years. Snippets of his televised trial in Miami came into people’s homes on the news each night. By the time he was executed in 1989 at age 42, Bundy was so widely despised that, according to Schechter’s book, people gathered outside the prison where he was to be electrocuted to toast his death with champagne. Across the state of Washington, Keppel said taverns in every city put up billboards celebrating his impending execution: “Drink one to Bundy.”

Ted Bundy Quotations

Theodore Robert Bundy is trying to TELL you Something:

“It is not an easy matter to isolate things. I mean, incidents which themselves could cause pressure or stress, be unpleasant to one degree or another or have a disorienting effect. You have to see it in its unique effect on the unique individual. There are no broad generalizations or predictions you can make. You just can’t predict behavior like that. Society wants to believe it can identify evil people … it’s not practical … If someone does something antisocial and deviant, that is a manifestation of something that is going on inside. Once they do something, then they can be labeled. Predictions can’t be made until that point is reached.”

“I think that you could say that the influence of the person’s family history was positive. But not positive enough — not enduring, perhaps not strong enough to overcome the urges or compulsions that resulted … in this instance, the influence of the family and the environment in which this person grew up were positive, but not so positive as to prepare this individual … ” “You take the individual we are talking about … and then you subject him to stress. Stress happens to come randomly, but its effect on the personality is not random; it’s specific. That results in a certain amount of chaos, confusion, and frustration. That person begins to seek out a target for his frustrations. The continued nature of this stress this person was under — the nature of the flaw or weakness in his personality, together with other elements in the environment that offer him a logical target for his frustrations or escapes from reality — yields the situation we’re discussing … There is no trigger, it is truly more sophisticated than that.”

“I hate to use labels that are psychological or psychiatric because there are no stereotypes, and when you start to use those labels, you stop looking at the facts.” “This condition is not immediately seen by the individual or identified as a serious problem. It sort of manifests itself in an interest concerning sexual behavior, as sexual images … But this interest, for some unknown reason, becomes geared toward matters of a sexual nature that involves violence. I cannot emphasize enough the gradual development of this. It is not short term … This is on a different level than this individual would deal with women every day, and not in the context of sexual condition, because that is over here someplace, like collecting stamps. He doesn’t retain the taste of glue, so to speak, all day long. But in a broader, more abstract way, it begins to preoccupy him.”

“He has no hatred for women; there is nothing in his background that happened that would indicate he has been abused by any females … there is some kind of weakness that gives rise to this individual’s interest in the kind of sexual activity involving violence that would gradually begin to absorb some of his fantasy … he was not imagining himself actually doing these things, but he found gratification from reading about others so engaged. Eventually the interest would become so demanding toward new material that it could only be catered to by what he could find in the dirty book stores.”

[Bundy described the part of "this personality" that found gratification in the thoughts, and later acts, of sexual violence as "the entity," "the disordered self," and "the malignancy." The schemes or ruses used for isolating and abducting his victims, were a result of fantasy, and attributed to the "Ted," or dominant part of the personality. The following are statements made by Ted in which he discusses the progressive pattern of sexual violence prior to the commission of murder.]

“Say he was walking down the street on one occasion, one evening, and just totally, by chance … looked up into the window of a house and saw a woman undressing … And he began, with some regularity, with increasing regularity, to, uh, canvass, as it were, the community he lived in. By peeping in windows, as it were, and watching a woman undress, or watching whatever could be seen, you know, during the evening, and approaching it almost like a project, throwing himself into it, literally for years … These occasions when he when he would, uh, travel about the neighborhoods that adjoined his and search out candidates for … search out places where … he could see what he wanted to see … more or less these occasions were dictated … still being dictated by this person’s normal life. So he wouldn’t break a date or postpone an important, uh, event … wouldn’t rearrange his life … to accommodate this, uh, indulgence in voyeuristic behavior … He gained … a great amount of gratification from it. And he became increasingly adept at it — as anyone becomes adept at anything they do over and over and over again … What began to happen was that … important matters were not being rearranged or otherwise interfered with by this voyeuristic behavior, but with increasing regularity, things were postponed or otherwise rescheduled, to, uh, work around, uh, hours and hours spent on the street, at night and during the early morning hours.”

” … what’s happening is that we’re building up the condition … and what may have been a predisposition for violence becomes a disposition. And as the condition develops and its purposes or its characteristics become more well defined, it begins to demand more time of the individual … There’s a certain amount of tension, uh, struggle, between the normal personality and this, this, uh, psychopathological, uh, entity … The tension between normal individual, uh, normal consciousness of this individual and those demands being submitted to him via this competing … this condition inside him seems to be competing for more attention … And it’s not an independent thing. One doesn’t switch on and the other doesn’t switch off. They’re more or less active at the same time. Sometimes one is more active … “

” … a point would be reached where we’d had all of this, this reservoir of tension building. Building and building. Finally, inevitably, this force — this entity — would make a breakthrough … Maybe not a major breakthrough, but a significant breakthrough would be achieved — where the tension would be too great and the demands and expectations of this entity would reach a point where they just could not be controlled. And where the consequences would really be seen for the first time.” ” I think you could make a little more sense of it if you take into account the effect of alcohol. It’s important … When this person drank a good deal, his inhibitions were significantly diminished. He would find that his urge to engage in voyeuristic behavior on trips to the book store would become more prevalent, more urgent. On every occasion when he engaged in such behavior, he was intoxicated.”

” … On one particular evening, when he had been drinking a great deal … and he was passing a bar, he saw a woman leaving the bar and walk up a fairly dark side street. And we’d say that for no … the urge to do something to that person seized him — in a way he’d never been affected before … And it seized him strongly. And to the point where, uh, without giving a great deal of thought, he searched around for some instrumentality to uh, uh, attack this woman with. He found a piece of a two-by-four in a lot somewhere and proceeded to follow and track this girl … and he reached the point where he was, uh, almost driven to do something — there was really no control at this point … the sort of revelation of that experience and the frenzied desire that seized him, uh, really seemed to usher in a new dimension to the, that part of himself that was obsessed with … violence and women and sexual activity — a composite kind of thing. Not terribly well defined, but more well defined as time went on.”

“On succeeding evenings he began to, uh, scurry around this same neighborhood, obsessed with the image he’d seen on the evening before … and on one particular occasion, he saw a woman park her car and walk up to her front door and fumble with her keys. He walked up behind her and struck her with a … piece of wood that he was carrying. And she fell down and began screaming, and he panicked and ran. What he had done had … purely terrified him … The sobering effect of that was to … for some time … close up the cracks again. And not do anything. For the first time, he sat back and swore to himself that he wouldn’t do something like that again … or anything that would lead to it … And he did everything he should have done. He stayed away from … he did not go out at night. And when he was drinking, he stayed around friends. For a period of months, the enormity of what he did stuck with him, and he watched his behavior and reinforced the desire to overcome what he had begun to perceive were some problems that were probably more severe than he would have liked to believe they were … within a matter of months … the impact of this event lost its … deterrent value. And within months he was back … peeping in windows again and slipping into that old routine … the repulsion began to recede … something did stick with him. That was the incredible danger: by allowing himself to fall into spontaneous, unplanned acts of violence … It took six months or so, until he back thinking of alternative means of engaging in similar activities, but not … something that would be likely to result in apprehension.”

“Then on another night he saw a woman walking home … he followed her home … Eventually, he created a plan where he would attack her in, in the house … early one morning, uh, he sneaked into her house … he jumped on the woman’s bed and attempted to restrain her… all he succeeded in doing was waking her up, and, uh, causing her to panic and scream. He left very rapidly … And then he was seized with the same kind of disgust, repulsion, and fear and wonder at why he was allowing himself to attempt such extraordinary violence … But the significance … was that while he did the same thing he did before — stayed off the streets, vowed he’d never do it again and recognized the horror of what he’d done, and certainly was frightened by what he saw happening — it only took him three months to get over it this time … and then the next incident, he was over it in a month — until it didn’t take him any time at all to recover… “

“We are talking about anonymous, abstracted, living and breathing people … but they were not known. To a point they were symbols, uh, but once a certain point in the encounter had been crossed, they ceased being individuals and became, uh, well you could say problems … that’s not the word either… that’s when the rational self — the normal self — would surface and, and, react with fear and horror … But, recognizing the state of affairs, would sort of conspire with this other part of himself to conceal the act. The survival took precedence over remorse … the normal individual, began to condition mentally, out guilt out guilt; using a variety of mechanisms. Saying it was justifiable, it was, uh, acceptable, it was necessary, and on and on.”

“He received no pleasure from harming or causing pain to the person he attacked. He received absolutely no gratification from causing pain and did everything possible, within reason — considering the unreasonableness of the situation — not to torture these individuals, at least not physically.”

[The following are statements made by Ted concerning the abduction and murder of twenty-one year old college co-ed Lynda Healy, which occurred on January 31, 1974. Healy was vanish ed from the basement bedroom the home which she shared with several other students. More than year had passed before her remains were discovered, as were those of three other young women, scattered on the hillside of Taylor Mountain.]

” … he checked out the house and found that the front door was open. He thought about it. What kind of opportunity that offered. And returned to the house later and entered the house … Then he went around the house and found a particular door and opened — really hit and miss. Not knowing who or what, not looking or anyone in particular … that would be the opportunity. This was late at night. And presumably everyone would be asleep … we know that sometime later the remains were found somewhere in the Cascades. So obviously she transported up there … some place that was quiet and private. His home or some secluded area … He would have the girl undress and then, with that part of himself gratified, he found himself in a position where he realized then he couldn’t let the girl go. And at that point he would kill her and leave her body where he had taken her.”

“As far as remorse over the act, that would last for a period of time. But it could all be justified. The person would attempt to justify it by saying, “Well, listen you, you fucked up this time, but you’re never going to do it again. So let’s just stay together, and it won’t ever happen again.” Why sacrifice this person’s whole life … But this did not last for very long. A matter of weeks. We go first into a state of semi-dormancy, and then it would sort of regenerate itself, in one form or another … Once the condition began to reassert its force, it didn’t look back. It looked forward. Didn’t want to dwell on the preceding event, but begin to plan, anticipate, contemplate the next … things would be learned. Experience teaches in overt and subtle ways. And over a period of time, there would be less panic, there would be less confusion, there would be less fear and apprehension. There would be a faster regeneration period.”

The following statements are made by Ted concerning the abduction and murder of twenty-two year old Kathy Parks. Kathy was last seen on May 6, 1974 at Oregon State University. Her remains were discovered approximately a year later on the hillside of Taylor Mountain.]

“It was established quite early in the case that her body had been ravished by wildlife … a whole variety of wild animals … feed on the carcasses … This might give us one as clue as to why this person returned to that site on at least several occasions . Perhaps it was discovered that when a body was left there, and later when the individual would return to check out the situation, he would find that it was no longer there!”

The following statements made by Ted are not relative to any one crime in particular.]

“Once he’d made his contact — and it appeared he was going to be able to carry it through — he became very calm and analytical about the situation he was in … a period of relaxation … until it came time for him to kill the victim … he would become torn apart as to the correctness of his conduct … he’d still have the overriding need to dispose of the victim, and, of course, once it was done, he would usually go into a state of panic. Suddenly it would seem as if the dominant, or formerly dominant … the predominant, normal self came back into control in a horrifying way. Or one that is presented with … conceived with panic and confusion … Fear of being captured or discovered … I would envision a continuation of this kind of collaboration … between that one part of this person’s self. Which demands certain gratification, and the more dominant, law-abiding, more ethical, rational, normal self — which was sort of forced to become a party to this kind of conduct. Basically you might say there was a shared division of responsibility. This came as much from evolution as from conscious choice.”

” … this activity is just a small, small portion of what was predominantly a normal existence … which continued to be a normal existence … This person could still be very much in favor of law and order and the police … and be very genuinely shocked by crime in the newspaper. And very much moved by people who suffered the death of a loved one. Complete, genuine responding in a normal fashion. Willing and able to help police. He would have a real feeling in those regards. Not out of a desire to protect or hide. These were just normal responses … The uniqueness of the whole situation is how this condition pertained to such a narrow spectrum of activity. The inhibitions that would normally prevent a person from acting that way were specifically excised, removed, diminished, repressed … in such a way as to not affect all the other inhibitions — or to result in the deterioration off the entire personality. But only in that tiny, tiny slice!”

“We would expect that after the passing of a period of time, this psychological condition, or part of that individual’s self … would reach a state of maturity … its growth would greatly diminish … the normal self had a pretty good understanding of this condition. Learned, uh, how to tolerate it..And perhaps, as a symptom of this matured state of development of the condition … we’d expect this individual wouldn’t need to drink to over come his inhibitions.”

“It’s like trying to examine what’s in the medical cabinet by, in great detail, examining what’s in the mirror … he wasn’t seeing through perhaps, the morass of justifications and obfuscations that he’d created and indulged in — and what he was closely examining was the reflection in the mirror, not what was behind it. Not what was really going on … on the one hand he thought he’d looked at the problem and dealt with it.”

TB: How does a person . . . how does a soldier deal with war?

HA: Well, he has the justification built in, you see, there.

TB: So does the mass murderer.

Psychiatric Evaluation of Ted Bundy

(Deposition of Dr. Emanuel Tanay)

The following is a deposition taken by Polly Nelson, who represented Bundy throughout the collateral appeal process. It was only at this stage that the question of Ted Bundy’s sanity was raised, though not in relation to the crimes. Nelson was hoping prove to the court that Bundy was not, at the time, comepetent to stand trial, therefore invalidating his conviction on three counts of murder. Dr. Emauel Tanay, who evaluated Bundy in 1979, is testifying as to what his findings were at that time.

Saturday, December 12, 1987.

Polly Nelson: What were your impressions of Mr. Bundy when you examined him on May eighteenth, 1979?

Dr. Emanuel Tanay: My impressions were that he was an individual who was indeed rather intelligent – who was well informed about a variety of matters – but, just as I indicated in my preliminary report, based on documents only, namely April twenty-seventh, 1979, he showed a typical picture of someone who suffers from a lifelong personality disorder. Someone who was, what we would call in psychiatry, an impulse-ridden indivdual, prone to acting out and more involved with immediate gratification than any long-term concerns. He was what in the literature has been described in the past as a typical psychopathic type of personality. This is an old term that is no longer used outside of textbooks, but nevertheless I found it quite descriptive of Mr. Bundy.

Nelson: What do you mean by the term “impulse-ridden?”

Tanay: Someone who has no control, or at least impaired control, over his or her impulses. Most people might perceive a certain type of impulse to act in a certain fashion, because it might gratify some kind of need, but they will reflect about it and make choices. Impulse-ridden individuals don’t have that ability. They are driven to gratify their impulse without subjecting it to reflection.

Nelson: Turning to page four of Exhibit Fifteen, you state that “in the nearly three hours which I spent with Mr. Bundy I found him to be in a cheerful, even jovial, mood. He was witty but not flippant; he spoke freely; however, meaningful communication was never established. He was asked about his apparent lack of concern so out of keeping with the charges facing him. He acknowledged that he was facing a possible death sentence. However, he said, ‘I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it.’ ” Do you recall that impression?

Tanay: Yes, I do.

Nelson: Could you describe more fully what Mr. Bundy’s mood and affect was like at that time?

Tanay: Mr. Bundy was more involved with impressing me with his brilliance and his wit than to use the services that had been arranged for him of an expert. He was informed that I was someone of national reputation and that he was to avail himself of these services – Mr. Minerva and other members of the defense team had so informed me – but that did not take place. Mr. Bundy dealt with me as if I was a reporter for Time magazine or some other publication. He certainly didn’t deal with me as if I was a psychiatrist retained by the defense to assist in defending him when he was facing a death sentence. He played a similar game with me as he played with the investigators.

Nelson: In what way?

Tanay: You see, I pointed out to him that a person who committed these type of sadistic homicides may be someone who may have available to him the defense of insanity, and I clearly indicated to him that it may be useful for him to discuss that with me; and just like he did with the investigators, he was confessing that he did – and I say “confessing” in quotes, because it wasn’t an official confession, but he was leading me to believe that he indeed committed these acts. Just like he told the investigators, to use their own words, that he was telling them that he did it, and yet he wasn’t. So he was creating a situation where he was pursuading people that he committed these acts and yet making it impossible for a psychiatrist, like myself, to review this in a manner that could convceivably assist his lawyer in formulating a defense, and he played it, ya know, he talked to me but never really talked to me about the situation directly. He never acknowledged that he committed the acts, therefore we could never discuss them, and yet he was indicating, in a manner that I can’t really describe to you, just as he did with the police officers, that he was the one who did it.

Nelson: What was your impression of the reason that Mr. Bundy was acting in that way?

Tanay: My impression was that it was typical behavior of a psychopath who likes to defy authority, who has a need, who is driven to defy authority – and that includes lawyers, psychiatrists, law enforcement, judges – and that was more important to him than saving his own life. He was typically responding to a gratification of the moment.

Nelson: You wrote here on page five of Exhibit Fifteen that “Mr. Bundy rationalized away every piece of evidence which linked him to the crime,” and a little further down, “Mr. Bundy has an incapacity to recognize the significance of the evidence held against him. It would be simplistic to characterize this as merely lying, in as much as he acts as if his perception of the evidence was reality – he makes decisions based upon these distorted perceptions of reality.” Do those statements accurately reflect your opinions concerning Mr. Bundy?

Tanay: Yes. On the same page I am describing, or making reference to what I knew at the time the evidence was against him, which certainly I was told by his attorneys was persuasive. By confronting him with the interview I tried to find out if he would respond to my pointing out to him the reality that he was facing, which he did. He simply rejected it.

Nelson: At the bottom of the same page you state, “It is my opinion, based on a variety of data, that his dealings with the criminal justice system are dominated by psychopathology.” Are you referring there merely to the alleged crimes or to Mr. Bundy’s other behaviors?

Tanay: Both. He was doing the same thing, he was being the same psychopath when he dealt with his victims that he tortured and killed as when he was dealing with lawyers who were helping him, or investigators who were trying to solve the crime. He was behaving in the same manner – psychiatrically it was the same, even though the consequences were obviously not as tragic, since he couldn’t harm anybody in the manner that he harmed his victims. He was harming other people. He was destructive to himself. He was destructive to his lawyers. My observations were that he was manipulating people around him, including his lawyers, even though it was destructive to him. Ultimately he was the victim of it all, but he was victimizing other people even while he was in jail.

Nelson: In your opinion, was this behavior of Mr Bundy’s under his conscious control?

Tanay: No, it was not. This was part and parcel of his maladaptive personality structure. He was doing what was dictated by his personality disorder.

Nelson: This psychopathology that you note, with which he deals with the criminal justice system, was that a temporary phenomena or was it a chronic condition?

Tanay: It was a lifelong pattern. It was not a temporary phenomena. It was an expression of his basic persoanlity structure.

Nelson: Would you describe Exhibit One?

Tanay: The real background of it is the fact that I told Mr. Minerva that I did not believe that Mr. Bundy would do what he was told to do, and my recollection was that Mr. Minerva was writing this to confirm that I was right, because I did – I recall Mr. Minerva expressing to some degree, I would have to say, admiration, for the fact that I had anticipated what would occur – I did not think that Mr. Bundy would cooperate.

Nelson: Cooperate in what manner?

Tanay: With the advice of his lawyers – including even Mr. Farmer, who supposedly Mr. Bundy greatly respected and admired – and that he would take the guilty plea, because it was my view that he would not, because that would terminate the show, his ability to be the celebrity would come to an end, he would be just someone who was spared from the death sentence, and the show would be over. Whereas, his need was to have the proceedings go on and on in order to gratify his pathological needs.

Nelson: If Mr.Bundy made the decision to reject the plea bargain, in your opinion would that have been a rational decision?

Tanay: No. It was, in my opinion, clearly an irrational decision, even though I anticipated it, not because it was rational but because it was consistent with the psychopathology, the mental disorder from which he suffered. In fact, had he done what his lawyers advised him to do, that would have been rational, since it was forseeable that he would be convicted and face the death penalty.

Nelson: Was Mr. Bundy’s behavior with his attorney and his actions in terms of self-representation and other defense matters, was that an integral part of his psychopathology?

Tanay: Very definitely so. He behaved like a typical psychopath with his lawyers, and, for that matter, with me.

Nelson: You testified at the competency hearing of June eleventh, 1979. At that hearing, did Mr. Bundy’s competency counsel, Mr. Hayes, explore your opinion to develop facts on which to make a decision as to Mr. Bundy’s competency?

Tanay: No one did that. To be very simplistic about it, my feeling of that hearing was like someone who dressed up for the party and arrived and they canceled the party. I was asked very few questions, and very little information about my knowledge of Mr. Bundy or the case was placed on the record.

Nelson: In your experience as an expert witness, was this proceeding unique?

Tanay: I have testified – I belive the first time was thrity years ago, and I have testified on many occasions since – but this is the only case like that, where I have been declared an adverse witness to both parties, and where information that I had was really not developed by the means of an adversary proceeding. Normally, one side pulls in one direction, the other side pulls in the other direction, and considerable information is elicited. I always consider cross-examination to be essential to develop a point of view that I am presenting.

Nelson: Did you feel that your opinion was adequately presented in this hearing?

Tanay: Not at all. Not at all. There was no exploration – that was my impression, I made some notes of it – that was my impression of what happened, and when I read it now that just confirms that my considerable work invested in the case was not utilized in that hearing. I mean, I did not develop my opinion and explain my opinion in this case. An expert witness, unlike a lecturer in a classroom, cannot function on his or her own. He or she is completely, say, at the mercy of whoever takes the testimony.

Nelson: Did you have an opinion at the time of the hearing on June eleventh whether or not Mr. Bundy was able to assist his counsel?

Tanay: Considering the nature of the functions that he was to perform as a defendant claiming innocence, it was my opinion that he was not able to stand trial. When you say assist his counsel, he was his own counsel.

Nelson: Was he capable of changin g that behavior and not becoming his own counsel?

Tanay: In my opinion, he was not. He was predictably unpredictable. What I mean by that is that one could anticipate that he would be guided more by showmanship than prudence.

Nelson: Was Mr. Bundy able meaningfully to assit his counsel at that time?

Tanay: He was not.

Nelson: Referring to the first factor in the Florida rules of criminal procedure governing competency to stand trial, do you have an opinion as to whether Mr. Bundy was able to appreciate the charges?

Tanay: Yes, I do have an opinion that he was able to appreciate the charges intellectually.

Nelson: When you say “intellectually,” do you mean that there was some way in which he was not able to appreciate the charges?

Tanay: That’s true. I’m of the opinion that he did not appreciate the seriousness of the charges. He could intellectually tell you what the charges were, but he just dismissed them as real insignificant – based on his rich imagination of law enforcement – which was not the case. Clearly the charges were based upon solid evidence, but that was not his view.

Nelson: Dr. Tanay, when you say that Mr. Bundy dismissed the weight of the evidence against him, was that merely carelessness on his part or was that due to an emotional or mental factor?

Tanay: It was part of the illness, his attitude was the product, the outcome, of the nature of the illness.

Nelson: Looking to the second factor of the Florida standards, was Mr. Bundy able to appreciate the range and the nature of the possible penalty?

Tanay: Again, intellectually he was. As I pointed out in my report, he said that he would cross that bridge when he came to it, when I was asking him, Do you know that you are facing th death snetence? He could intellectually acknowledge it, but he sure didn’t act like a man who was facing a death sentence. He was acting like a man who did not have a care in the world. I think I commented upon it in my report, that he was cheerful and acted more like a man who was not in jail but was onstage.

Nelson: Was that fact psychiatrically significant?

Tanay: Yes. It’s consistent with the diagnosis that I have previously described, of someone who is typical psychopath or suffers from a personality disorder.

Nelson: Dr. Tanay, did you ever observe Mr. Bundy with Mr. Minerva?

Tanay: Yes. As I indicated in my report, Mr. Bundy was acting as if Mr. Minerva was his third assistant and not a lawyer representing him.

Nelson: Did you in June of 1979 have an opinion as to Mr. Bundy’s ability to assist his attorneys in planning his defense?

Tanay: I did have an opinion.

Nelson: And what was that opinion?

Tanay: That he was unable to assist in planning his defense. To the contrary, he was interfering with whatever meaningful plans the defense made. He sabotaged pretty consitently what the defense lawyers had worked out. His conduct was symptomatic of his illness, and it was outside his control.

Nelson: What was your opinion as to Mr. Bundy’s motivation to help himself in the legal process?

Tanay: He was not motivated by a need to help himself. He was motivated by the need to be the star of the show, as I pointed out in my report. He was the producer of a play in which he was playing a big role. The defense and his future were of secondary importance to him. Tanay: Definitely not. I have absolutely no doubt that he was a disaster as cocounsel or chief counsel of his own defense and that was certainly forseeable.

Decade After Ted Bundy’s Execution, Survivors Still Quiver, Mourn

Yodaspage

Associated Press

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) – The heavy footsteps of emergency medical technicians and the crackling of police radios awakened Susan Denton from a deep sleep to a scene of horror and blood. In the hallway of Chi Omega sorority house at Florida State University in Tallahassee, her friend Karen Chandler was being loaded onto a gurney. Another sorority sister, Kathy Kleiner, sat dazed on her bed down the hall, blood pouring down her face. Two others had been strangled: Margaret Bowman’s body lay in her room, and Lisa Levy died on the way to the hospital.

“When you realize how close it occurred, you think why was it their room and not our room? You go through all that,” said Ms. Denton in an interview recently. She still quivers at the memory of the January 1978 attacks and of the sinister stranger with the engaging smile and magnetic appeal who was finally convicted of the rampage, Theodore Robert Bundy. It has been 10 years since Ted Bundy was executed in Florida’s electric chair. “There probably wasn’t a day that went by that I didn’t think of Lisa and Margaret,” said Ms. Denton, who for 14 years worked to make Florida’s victim rights laws more sensitive to crime victims.

From early 1974 to early 1978, the stranger called “Ted” stalked young women on college campuses, at shopping malls, in apartment buildings and grade schools in Washington, Oregon, Utah, Idaho, Colorado and finally Florida. “He was the kind of charmer that you would take home to your sister,” said David Lee, now with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Two decades ago, on Feb. 15, 1978, as a Pensacola policeman he had spotted a stolen Volkswagen and signaled the driver to pull over.

During questioning, the driver kicked Lee’s legs out from under him and ran. Lee fired a warning shot, then a second round at the fleeing man. Lee thought he had wounded the man but soon found himself in a struggle over his gun. He finally subdued and arrested the man. It turned out that Lee had apprehended one of the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted. The man was a suspect in the murders of the two Chi Omega sisters and Kimberly Leach, a 12-year-old abducted from outside her school in Lake City on Feb. 9, 1978, brutalized and left dead in a deserted hog shed. He was Ted Bundy.

As a teen, Bundy was shy and sensitive. At a Seattle crisis center, he counseled the depressed, the alcoholic, the suicidal. He graduated with a degree in psychology from the University of Washington in 1972, designed a program for dealing with habitual criminals and wrote a pamphlet on rape for the King County crime commission. Although no one knows for sure how many women Bundy killed, his first victim is believed to be Mary Adams, 18, whose battered body was found in her Seattle bedroom on Jan. 4, 1974.

In the next year and a half, police investigated several disappearances and killings of women in the West, some of them since linked to Bundy. He was arrested in August 1975 and convicted in March 1976 of kidnapping Carol DaRonch in Utah. That fall, he was charged with killing a Michigan nurse in Aspen, Colo. But he escaped from custody twice, the last time in December 1977. And once again, the murders started mounting.

Bob Keppel, chief investigator of the Washington state attorney general’s office, spent Bundy’s final days trying to tie him to unsolved crimes. “There was no human remains found. We were able to feel he was the one who committed all the murders. He confessed to more than 30 of them,” said Keppel, author of “The River Man” about Bundy’s murderous odyssey.

Mike Minerva, who defended Bundy in the Chi Omega murders, said prosecutors offered a deal to spare his life if he pleaded guilty to the three Florida slayings in exchange for 75 years in prison. Bundy backed out at the last minute. “It made him realize he was going to have to stand up in front of the whole world and say he was guilty. He just couldn’t do it,” said Minerva, who works in the public defender’s office in Tallahassee. After 11 years of trials and appeals, then-Florida Gov. Bob Martinez signed the final death warrant against Bundy on Jan. 17, 1989.

On the night before his execution, Bundy talked of suicide, recalled Bill Hagmaier, chief of the FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crimes. “We had some discussions about morality and the taking of another life and his concerns about trying to explain to God about his actions,” Hagmaier added.

After drafting a will and letters to his mother, wife and daughter, there was one more thing the killer wanted. “He wanted to rehearse his execution,” Hagmaier said. “I talked him through it, the mechanics of it.” “I’m afraid to die,” Bundy told him.

The sun was peeking over the horizon on Jan. 24, 1989, when a black-hooded executioner turned a switch that sent 2,000 volts through Bundy’s body. As witnesses walked into the cold air from the stuffy execution viewing area, fireworks erupted in the cow pasture across the road from Florida State Prison. There, hawkers sold “Burn Bundy Burn” T-shirts and gold electric-chair lapel pins. Dozens cheered when the hearse carrying his body drove by. Assistant State Attorney Bob Dekle helped put Bundy in the electric chair for the murder of little Kimberly Leach. As he watched the execution, his mind replayed vivid images of that April day in 1978 when her body was discovered. “I’m satisfied that it’s over,” he said recently, “but for some people like Kim Leach’s family, it will never be over.”

Theodore Robert Bundy

The Wacky World of Murder

BORN : November 24, 1946

DIED : January 24, 1989

VICTIMS : 23+

Ted Bundy is a striking contrast to the general image of a “homicidal maniac”: attractive, self-assured, politically ambitious, and successful with a wide variety of women. But his private demons drove him to extremes of violence that make the gory worst of modern “slasher” films seem almost petty by comparison. With his chameleon-like ability to blend, his talent for belonging, Bundy posed an ever-present danger to the pretty, dark-haired women he selected as his victims.

Linda Healy was the first fatality. On January 31, 1974, she vanished from her basement lodgings in Seattle, leaving bloody sheets behind, a blood-stained nightgown hanging in her closet. Several blocks away, young Susan Clarke had been assaulted, bludgeoned in her bed a few weeks earlier, but she survived her crushing injuries and would eventually recover. As for Lynda Healy, she was gone without a trace.

Police had no persuasive evidence of any pattern yet, but it would not be long in coming. On March 12, Donna Gail Manson disappeared en route to a concert in Olympia, Washington. On April 17, Susan Rancourt vanished on her way to see a German language film in Ellensburg.

On May 6, Roberta Parks failed to return from a late-night stroll in her Corvallis neighborhood. On June 1, Brenda Ball left Seattle’s Flame Tavern with an unknown man and vanished, as if into thin air. Ten days later, Georgann Hawkins joined the list of missing women, lost somewhere between her boyfriend’s apartment and her own sorority house in Seattle.

Now detectives had their pattern. All the missing women had been young, attractive, with their dark hair worn at shoulder length or longer, parted in the middle. In their photos, laid out side-by-side, they might have passed for sisters, some for twins. Homicide investigators had no corpses yet, but they refused to cherish false illusions of a happy ending to the case. There were so many victims, and the worst was yet to come.

July 14. A crowd assembled on the shores of Lake Sammamish to enjoy the sun and water sports of summer. When the day was over, two more names would be appended to the growing list of missing women: Janice Ott and Denise Naslund had each disappeared within sight of their separate friends, but this time police had a tenuous lead. Passers-by remembered seeing Janice Ott in conversation with a man who carried one arm in a sling; he had been overheard to introduce himself as “Ted.”

With that report in hand, detectives turned up other female witnesses who were themselves approached by “Ted” at Lake Sammamish. In each case, he had asked for help securing a sailboat to his car. The lucky women had declined, but one had followed “Ted” to where his small Volkswagen “bug” was parked; there was no sign of any sailboat, and his explanation – that the boat would have to be retrieved from a house “up the hill” – had aroused her suspicions, prompting her to put the stranger off.

Police now had a fair description of their suspect and his car. The published references to “Ted” inspired a rash of calls reporting “suspects,” one of them in reference to college student Theodore Bundy. The authorities checked out each lead as time allowed, but Bundy was considered “squeaky clean;” a law student and Young Republican active in law-and-order politics, he once had chased a mugger several blocks to make a citizen’s arrest. So many calls reporting suspects had been made from spite or simple overzealousness, and Bundy’s name was filed away with countless others, momentarily forgotten.

On September 7, hunters found a makeshift graveyard on a wooded hillside several miles from Lake Sammamish. Dental records were required to finally identify remains of Janice Ott and Denise Naslund; the skeleton of a third woman, found with the others, could not be identified. Five weeks later, on October 12, another hunter found the bones of two more women in Clark County.

One victim was identified as Carol Valenzuela, missing for two months from Vancouver, Washington, on the Oregon border; again, the second victim would remain unknown, recorded in the files as a “Jane Doe.” Police were optimistic, hopeful that discovery of victims would eventually lead them to the killer, but they had no way of knowing that their man had given them the slip already, moving on in search of safer hunting grounds and other prey.

The terror came to Utah on October 2, 1974, when Nancy Wilcox disappeared in Salt Lake City. On October 18, Melissa Smith vanished in Midvale; her body, raped and beaten, would be unearthed in the Wasatch Mountains nine days later. Laura Aime joined the missing list in Orem, on October 31, while walking home in costume from a Halloween party; a month would pass before her battered, violated body was discovered in a wooded area outside of town. A man attempted to abduct attractive Carol Da Ronch from a Salt Lake City shopping mall November 8, but she was able to escape before he could attach a pair of handcuffs to her wrists. That evening, Debbie Kent was kidnapped from the auditorium at Salt Lake City’s Viewmont High School.

Authorities in Utah kept communications open with police in other states, including Washington. They might have noticed that a suspect from Seattle, one Ted Bundy, was attending school in Utah when the local disappearances occurred, but they were looking for a madman, rather than a sober, well-groomed student of the law who seemed to have political connections in Seattle. Bundy stayed on file, and was again forgotten.

With the new year, Colorado joined the list of hunting grounds for an elusive killer who apparently selected victims by their hairstyles. Caryn Campbell was the first to vanish, from a ski lodge at Snowmass on January 12; her raped and battered body would be found on February 17. On March 15, Julie Cunningham disappeared en route to a tavern in Vail. One month later to the day, Melanie Cooley went missing while riding her bicycle in Nederland; she was discovered eight days later, dead, her skull crushed, with her jeans pulled down around her ankles. On July 1, Shelly Robertson was added to the missing list in Golden; her remains were found on August 23, discarded in a mine shaft near the Berthoud Pass.

A week before the final, grim discovery, Ted Bundy was arrested in Salt Lake City for suspicion of burglary. Erratic driving had attracted the attention of police, and an examination of his car – a small VW – revealed peculiar items such as handcuffs and a pair of panty hose with eyeholes cut to form a stocking mask.

The glove compartment yielded gasoline receipts and maps that linked the suspect with a list of Colorado ski resorts, including Vail and Snowmass. Carol Da Ronch identified Ted Bundy as the man who had attacked her in November, and her testimony was sufficient to convict him on a charge of attempted kidnapping. Other states were waiting for a shot at Bundy now, and in January 1977 he was extradited to Colorado for trial in the murder of Caryn Campbell, at Snowmass.

Faced with prison time already, Bundy had no time to spare for further trials. He fled from custody in June, and was recaptured after eight days on the road. On December 30 he tried again, with more success, escaping all the way to Tallahassee, Florida, where he found lodgings on the outskirts of Florida State University. Suspected in a score of deaths already, Bundy had secured himself another happy hunting ground.

In the small hours of January 15, 1978, he invaded the Chi Omega sorority house, dressed all in black and armed with a heavy wooden club. Before he left, two women had been raped and killed, a third severely injured by the beating he inflicted with his bludgeon. Within the hour, he had slipped inside another house, just blocks away, to club another victim in her bed. She, too, survived. Detectives at the Chi Omega house discovered bite marks on the corpses there, appalling evidence of Bundy’s fervor at the moment of the kill.

On February 6, Ted stole a van and drove to Jacksonville, where he was spotted in the act of trying to abduct a schoolgirl. Three days later, twelve-year-old Kimberly Leach disappeared from a schoolyard nearby; she was found in the first week of April, her body discarded near Suwanee State Park.

Police in Pensacola spotted Bundy’s stolen license plates on February 15, and were forced to run him down as he attempted to escape on foot. Once Bundy was identified, impressions of his teeth were taken to compare with bite marks on the Chi Omega victims, and his fate was sealed. Convicted on two counts of murder in July 1979, he was sentenced to die in Florida’s electric chair. A third conviction and death sentence were subsequently obtained in the case of Kimberly Leach. After ten years of appeals, Bundy was finally executed in February 1989, he confessed to a total of 28 murders.

This bio was taken from “Hunting Humans,” by Michael Newton.

What We Learned from Ted Bundy

By Leilani Corpus – Forerunner.com

March 1989

STARKE, FL (FR) – He was once an assistant director of the Seattle Crime Prevention advisory committee and even wrote a pamphlet instructing women on rape prevention. A one-time Boy Scout with a promising career in Washington state politics, Ted Bundy appeared to be an example of a good, upstanding citizen. But behind the congenial facade lurked a force which landed him in an electric chair in January of this year.

In the last few hours prior to his widely-publicized execution for the murder of as many as 50 young women and girls from Utah, Washington, Idaho, Colorado and Florida, the serial killer asked Christian psychologist James Dobson to visit him at the Florida State Prison. Bundy had corresponded with Dr. Dobson – a former member of President Reagan’s Commission on Pornography – for two years prior to their meeting. While anxious reporters waited outside, Bundy told Dobson about the influence of pornography on his behavior.

Bundy said he began casually reading soft-core pornography when he was 12 or 13 years old. His friends found pornographic books in the garbage cans in his neighborhood: “(F)rom time to time we would come across pornographic books of a harder nature … a more graphic, explicit nature than we would encounter at the local grocery store,” he told Dobson in the taped interview. “But slowly throughout the years reading pornography began to become a deadly habit. “My experience with pornography … is once you become addicted to it, (and I look at this as a kind of addiction like other kinds of addiction), I would keep looking for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Like an addiction, you keep craving something that is harder, something which gives you a greater sense of excitement. Until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far, you reach that jumping off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give you that which is beyond just reading or looking at it.”

Within a few years, those latent desires fueled by pornography were expressed through his first murder. Although Bundy said he did not blame pornography, he explained that pornographic materials shaped and molded his behavior. He also warned the nation that “the most damaging kinds of pornography … are those that involve violence and sexual violence. Because the wedding of those two forces, as I know only too well, brings out the hatred that is just, just too terrible to describe.”

Bundy said that pornography “snatched me out of my home 20, 30 years ago … and pornography can reach out and snatch a kid out of any house today.” His religious training and morality initially restrained him from acting out his fantasies, but he confessed that finally, “I couldn’t hold back anymore.” Alcohol supposedly broke the restraints for him to commit his first murder. “What alcohol did in conjunction with exposure to pornography is (sic) alcohol reduced my inhibitions at the same time the fantasy life that was fueled by pornography eroded them further.”

While committing the murders, Bundy said he felt as if he was possessed by “something … awful and alien. There is just absolutely no way to describe first the brutal urge to do that kind of thing, and then what happens is once it has been more or less satisfied and recedes, you might say, or spent, that energy level recedes and basically I become myself again.” “But basically I was a normal person. I wasn’t some guy hanging out at bars or a bum. I wasn’t a pervert in the sense that people look at somebody and say, ‘I know there is something wrong with him, you can just tell.’ I was essentially a normal person,” Bundy told Dobson. “The basic humanity and the basic spirit that God gave me was intact, but unfortunately became overwhelmed at times.”

Ted Bundy acknowledged that he deserved the death penalty, even though there were anti-death penalty demonstrators outside his prison cell up until the moment of his execution. “I deserve the most extreme punishment society has,” he said. “But I don’t want to die, I kid you not.” Dobson said that Bundy wept several times during the interview: “He expressed great regret, remorse for what he had done, for the families that were hurting.” He spent his last night in prayer with a minister from Gainesville, Florida.

Bundy’s last words of confession and warning about pornography are an echo of statistics, research, and reports conducted within the last decade about the link between pornography and sexually violent crime. Unfortunately, many of the warnings in those reports still have not been heeded, and pornography has been taken for granted or considered a necessary evil.

According to a study conducted by a group of psychologists, Neil Malamuth of UCLA, Gene Abel of Columbia University, and William Marshall of Kingston Penitentiary, various forms of pornography can elicit fantasies which may lead to crime. Out of a test group of 18 rapists studied who used ‘consenting pornography’ to instigate a sexual offence, seven of them said that it provided a cue to elicit fantasies of forced sex.

A study released by the University of New Hampshire has proven that the states which have the highest readership of pornographic magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse also have the highest rape rates. The Michigan State Police department found that pornography is used or imitated in 41 percent of the sex crimes they have investigated.

The Free Congress Research and Education Foundation discovered that half of all rapists studied used soft core pornography to arouse themselves prior to seeking out a victim. Although researchers and media analysts may ballyhoo the impact of soft core pornography – claiming protection under the free speech provision of the Constitution – mounting evidence seems to be favoring a national crackdown on porn as a necessary means to stop crime.

In recent years, as more of this type of research has been published, significant gains have been made against pornographers as major retailers have removed porn from their shelves. Ted Bundy’s confessions to Dr. James Dobson – a leader of the largest segment of pro-family forces in the U.S. – promises to fuel the nationwide efforts being made on the state and local levels to eliminate the pornography problem.

Ted Bundy

By Rachael Bell

The Ted Bundy Story – Attack!

Joni Lenz’s roommates had not been particularly worried when they didn’t see her in the morning of January 4, 1974. But when she still wasn’t up and around that afternoon, they went into her basement bedroom to see if she was sick.A horrifying sight confronted them.

Ann Rule in her now famous classic book on the subject, The Stranger Beside Me, wrote that Joni, 18, had been badly beaten. A bed rod had been torn away from the bed and savagely rammed into her vagina. Shortly after the discovery, Joni was transported to the hospital in a comatose state, suffering from damages that would affect her for the rest of her life.

However, she was lucky to be alive. Joni was one of the few victims to survive an attack by Ted Bundy, who reigned terror across the United States between 1974 and 1978. There were an estimated 35 more victims after Joni who were not so fortunate. Stephen Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth in The Only Living Witness suggest that perhaps 40 young women may have fallen prey to Bundy, but only Bundy knew for sure. It is a number that Bundy has carried with him to his grave.

The Early Years

Theodore Robert Cowell was born on November 24, 1946 to Louise Cowell following her stay of three months at the Elizabeth Lund Home for Unwed Mothers in Vermont . Ted’s biological father, who was an Air Force veteran, was unknown to his son throughout his life. Shortly after his birth, Ted and his mother moved back to the home of his grandparents in Philadelphia . While growing up, Ted was led to believe that his grandparents were his parents and his natural mother was his older sister. The charade was created in order to protect his biological mother from harsh criticism and prejudice of being an unwed mother.

At the age of four, Ted and his mother moved to Tacoma , Washington to live with relatives. A year after the move, Louise fell in love with a military cook named Johnnie Culpepper Bundy. In May 1951, the couple was married and Ted assumed his stepfather’s last name, which he would keep for the rest of his life.

Over the years, the Bundy family added four other siblings, who Ted spent much of his time babysitting after school. Ted’s stepfather tried to form a bond between himself and Ted by including him in camping trips and other father-son activities. However, Johnnie’s attempts were unsuccessful and Ted remained emotionally detached from his stepfather. According to Stephen Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth’s book Ted Bundy: Conversations with a Killer , Ted became increasingly uncomfortable around his stepfather and preferred to be alone. This desire to be by himself increased and possibly led to his later inability to socially interact comfortably with others.

As a youth, Ted was terribly shy, self-doubting and uncomfortable in social situations. He was often teased and made the butt of pranks by bullies in his junior high school. Michaud analyzed Ted’s behavior and decided that he was “not like other children, he looked and acted like them, but he was haunted by something else: a fear, a doubt — sometimes only a vague uneasiness-? that inhabited his mind with the subtlety of a cat. He felt it for years, but he didn’t recognize it for what it was until much later.” Regardless of the humiliating experiences he sometimes suffered from being different, he was able to maintain a high grade-point average that would continue throughout high school and later into college.

During his high school years, Ted appeared to blossom into a more gregarious young man. His popularity increased significantly and he was considered to be “well dressed and exceptionally well mannered.” Despite his emerging popularity, Ted seldom dated. His interests lay more in extra-curricular activities such as skiing and politics. In fact, Ted had a particular fascination with politics, an interest that would years later temporarily land him in the political arena.

Following high school, Ted attended college at the University of Puget Sound and the University of Washington . He worked his way through school by taking on several low-level jobs, such as a bus boy and shoe clerk. However, he seldom stayed with one position for very long. His employers considered him to be unreliable.

Although Ted was inconsistent with his work outside of school, he was very focused on his studies and grades. Yet, his focus changed during the spring of 1967 when he began a relationship that would forever change his life.

Ted met a girl that was everything he had ever dreamed of in a woman. She was a beautiful and highly sophisticated woman from a wealthy Californian family. Ted couldn’t believe someone from her “class” would have an interest in someone like him. Although they had many differences, they both loved to ski and it was during their many ski trips together that he fell in love. She was really Ted’s first love, and, according to Ann Rule, possibly the first woman with whom he became involved with sexually. However, she was not as infatuated with Ted as he was with her. In fact, she liked Ted a lot but believed he had no real direction or future goals. Ted tried too hard to impress her, even if that meant lying, something that she didn’t like at all.

Michaud writes that Ted won a summer scholarship to the prestigious Stanford University in California just to impress her, but at Stanford, his immaturity was exposed. He writes, “Ted did not understand why the mask he had been using had failed him. This first tentative foray into the sophisticated world had ended in disaster.”

In 1968, after his girlfriend graduated from the University of Washington, she broke off relations with Ted. She was a practical young woman and seemed to realize that Ted had some serious character flaws that took him out of the running as “husband material.”

Ted never recovered from the break-up. Nothing, including school, seemed to hold any interest for him and he eventually dropped out, dumb-founded and depressed over the break-up. He managed to stay in touch with her by writing after she returned to California, yet she seemed uninterested in getting back together. But Ted became obsessed with this young woman and he couldn’t get her out of his mind. It was an obsession that would span his lifetime and lead to a series of events that would shock the world.

A Time of Change

To make matters worse, in 1969 Bundy learned his true parentage. His “sister” was actually his mother and his “parents,” were actually his grandparents. Not unexpectedly, this late discovery had a rather serious impact on him. Michaud says that his attitude towards his mother did not change much, but he became nasty and surly to Johnnie Bundy.

It’s hard to say whether the knowledge that his mother had deceived him all his life had any impact on his other character flaws which were beginning to blossom. Throughout Ted Bundy’s high school and college years, there was always a cloud over his reputation for honesty. Many people close to him suspected him of petty thievery.

According to Marilyn Bardsley, Crime Library’s serial killer expert, Ted’s psychopathic nature was being revealed, but most of the people that witnessed it did not realize what they were experiencing. Stealing without any sense of guilt and, in fact, a sense of entitlement, is a common trait in a psychopath. Also, psychopaths get a thrill from the the excitement and danger that stealing and shoplifting presents to them. Ted’s dishonesty evolved from stealing small things in work and school situations to shoplifting to burglarizing homes for televisions and other items of value.

He changed from a shy and introverted person to a more focused and dominant character. He was driven, as if to prove himself to the world. He re-enrolled at the University of Washington and studied psychology, a subject in which he excelled. Bundy became an honors student and was well liked by his professors at the university.

It is also at this time when Ted met Elizabeth Kendall (a pseudonym under which she wrote The Phantom Prince: My Life With Ted Bundy ), a woman with whom he would be involved with for almost five years. Elizabeth worked as a secretary and was a somewhat shy and quiet woman. She was a divorcee who seemed to have found in Ted Bundy the perfect father figure for her daughter. Elizabeth was deeply in love with Ted from the start and wanted to one day marry him. However, Ted said he was not yet ready for marriage because he felt there was still too much for him to accomplish. She knew that Ted didn’t feel as strongly for her as she did him. She felt that on many occasions Ted was meeting with other women. Yet, Elizabeth hoped that time would bring him around to her and he would eventually change his ways. She was unaware of his past relationship with his girlfriend from California and that they still continued to keep in contact and visit each other.

Outwardly, Ted’s life in 1969-1972 seemed to be changing for the better. He was more confident, with high hopes for his future. Ted began sending out applications to various law schools, while at the same time he became active in politics. He worked on a campaign to re-elect a Washington governor, a position that allowed Ted to form bonds with politically powerful people in the Republican Party. Ted also performed volunteer work at a crisis clinic on a work-study program. He was pleased with the path his life was taking at this time, everything seemed to be going in the right direction. He was even commended by the Seattle police for saving the life of a three-year-old boy who was drowning in a lake.

In 1973, during a business trip to California for the Washington Republican Party, Ted met up with his old girlfriend. She was amazed at the transformation in Ted. He was much more confident and mature, not as aimless as he was when they last dated. They met several other times afterwards, unknown to his steady girlfriend, Elizabeth. During Ted’s business trips he romantically courted the lovely young woman from California and she once again fell in love with him.

Marriage was a topic brought up more than once by Ted over their many intimate rendezvous during that fall and winter. Yet, just as suddenly as their romance began, it changed radically. Where once Ted lavished affection upon her, he was suddenly cold and despondent. It seemed as if Ted had lost all interest in her in just a few weeks. She was clearly confused about this “new” Ted. In February 1974, with no warning or explanation, Ted ended all contact with her. His plan of revenge worked. He rejected her as she had once rejected him. She was never to see or hear from Ted again.

A Time of Terror

Lynda Ann Healy was a very accomplished young woman. At age 21, morning radio listeners heard her friendly voice announce the ski conditions for the major ski areas in western Washington. She was a beautiful girl, tall and slim with shiny clean, long brown hair and a ready smile.

The product of a good family and an uppper-middle-class environment, she was an excellent singer and a senior at the University of Washington, majoring in psychology. She loved working with children who were mentally handicapped.

Lynda shared a house near the university with four other young women. On January 31, 1974, she and a few friends went for a few beers after dinner at Dante’s, a tavern that was popular with the university students. They didn’t stay long and Lynda went home to watch television and talk on the phone to her boyfriend. Then Lynda went to bed. The roommate in the room next to Lynda heard no noises coming from Lynda’s room that night.

Lynda had to get up every morning at 5:30 to get to her job at the radio station. The roommmate heard Lynda’s alarm go off at 5:30 as it did customarily. What was unusual was that the alarm kept buzzing. When the roommate finally went in to shut off the alarm, she heard the phone ring. It was the radio station calling to see where Lynda was. The bed in Lynda’s room was made and nothing looked disturbed, so the roommate assumed that Lynda was on her way to work.

When her parents called that afternoon to find out why Lydna had not shown up for dinner as expected, everyone became worried. Nobody had seen her. She seemed to have vanished from the house.

Lynda’s parents called the police. In Lynda’s room, they found that her bed had been made up in a way that Lynda had never made it up before. In fact, Lynda was not normally one to make up her bed. Oddly, a pillowcase and the top sheet were missing on this carefully made-up bed.

A small bloodstain of the same blood type as Lydna’s was found on the pillow and the bottom sheet. Blood was also on her nightgown that was carefully hung in the closet. An outfit of hers was missing.

Another alarming clue was that one of the doors to the house was unlocked when the girls were always vigilant about locking it.

The police were not initially convinced that Lynda had been a victim of foul play, so no fingerprint, hair or fiber evidence was gathered.

Ultimately, police realized that an intruder had somehow gotten into the house, removed her nightgown and hung it in the closet, dressed her in a change of clothes, made up the bed, wrapped Lynda in the top bed sheet and carried her out of the house — very quietly.

Killing Spree

During that spring and summer, more women students suddenly and inexplicably vanished. There were striking similarities among many of the cases. For instance, all the girls were white, slender, single, wearing slacks at the time of disappearance, had hair that was long and parted in the middle and they all disappeared in the evening.

Also around the time of the disappearances, police interviewed college students who told them of a strange man who was seen wearing a cast on either his arm or leg. Supposedly, the stranger seemed to be struggling with books and asking young women nearby for assistance. Other eyewitnesses reported a strange man in the campus parking lot who had a cast and asked for assistance with his car, a VW bug that he apparently had difficulty starting. Interestingly, around the same area where two of the girls mysteriously disappeared, there was seen such a man wearing a cast on his arm or leg.

Finally, in August of 1974 in Washington’s Lake Sammamish State Park, the remains of some of the missing girls were found and two were later identified. It was remarkable that police were able to identify two of the bodies considering what was left — strands of various colors of hair, five thigh bones, a couple of skulls and a jaw bone. The girls identified were Janice Ott and Denise Naslund, who disappeared on the same day, July 14th.

The last people to have seen Ott, a couple picnicking near by, remembered a handsome young man approaching the young woman. From what the couple could hear of the conversation between Ott and the young man, his name was Ted and he had difficulty loading his boat onto his car because his arm was in a cast. He asked Ott for assistance and she agreed to help. That was the last time twenty-three-year-old Janice Ott was seen alive.

Denise Naslund was spending the afternoon with her boyfriend and friends when she walked towards the restroom in the park, never to return again. That afternoon, around where she disappeared, a man who wore a cast and asked for help with his boat approached a couple of women. They were unable to assist the attractive young man. However, Denise Naslund was the kind of girl to help someone in need, especially someone with a broken arm–an act of kindness that cost her life. Denise Naslund was not the last woman to disappear and be found dead.

This time the killer would travel to different states.

Midvale, Utah’s, Police Chief Louis Smith had a seventeen-year-old daughter whom he frequently warned about the dangers of the world. He had seen all too much during his career and worried for his daughter’s safety. Yet, his worst fears were to come true on October 18, 1974 when his daughter Melissa disappeared. She had been found 9 days after her disappearance — strangled, sodomized and raped.

Thirteen days later on Halloween, seventeen-year-old Laura Aime disappeared. She was found on Thanksgiving Day in the Wasatch Mountains lying dead by a river. Aime had been beaten about the head and face with a crowbar, raped and sodomized. It was suspected that she was killed someplace other than where she was found due to the lack of blood at the crime scene. Other than her body, there was no physical evidence for the police to use.

Similarities

The similarities with the Washington State murders caught the attention of local police in Utah , who were frantically searching for the man responsible for the grisly crimes. With each murder, the evidence was slowly mounting. Utah police consulted with Washington State investigators. Almost all agreed that it was highly likely that the same man who committed the crimes in Washington State had also been responsible for the murders in Utah . Thanks to eyewitness accounts of the man in the cast seen near the areas where many of the women had disappeared, they were able to come up with a composite of the could-be-killer who called himself “Ted.”

When a close friend of Elizabeth Kendall saw the account of Melissa Smith’s murder in the paper and the composite of the could-be-killer, she knew that Ted Bundy must be the man. It wasn’t just her intense dislike and mistrust for Elizabeth ‘s boyfriend that led her to believe that Ted was the “man,” but also the fact that he looked so much like the composite picture in the paper.

Deep down, Elizabeth must have known her friend was right. After all, Ted did resemble the sketch, he drove a VW similar to those seen by witnesses and she had seen crutches in his room even though he never injured his leg. According to the book The Phantom Prince: My Life with Ted Bundy, which was later written by Kendall , she anonymously called the Seattle Police Department in August 1974 and stated that her boyfriend “might be involved” in the recent murder cases. She called again later that fall and gave more pertinent information that might assist the investigators in the case. She also agreed to give recent pictures of Ted, to later be shown to witnesses. However, the witnesses did not make a positive I.D. after viewing the pictures and Elizabeth ‘s report was eventually filed away. The investigators working the case decided to turn their attention towards more likely suspects and Ted Bundy was forgotten until a few years later.

The killer continued to elude investigators, assuming that by operating in different states the police would be unable to compare the cases. His behavior became increasingly bold and risky as he approached women. Those who escaped his advances would later recognize him and provide the police with valuable information.

Risky Attacks

It was on November 8th, 1974, when police investigators were to get the break in the case for which they had been waiting. That Friday evening, a strange but handsome man in a book store at a Utah mall approached eighteen-year-old Carol DaRonch. The stranger told her that he had seen someone trying to break into her car and asked her to go along with him to the parking lot to see if anything had been stolen.

Carol thought that the man must have been a mall security guard because he seemed so in control of the situation. When they arrived at the car, she checked it and informed the man everything was there. The man, who identified himself as Officer Roseland, was not satisfied and wanted to escort her to police headquarters. He wanted her to ID the supposed criminal and file a complaint. When he led her to a VW bug, she became suspicious and asked for identification. He quickly showed her a gold badge and then escorted her into the car.

He drove off quickly in the opposite direction of the police station and, after a short while, he suddenly stopped the car. Fear had set into Carol DaRonch. The “police officer” suddenly grabbed her and tried to put handcuffs on her. DaRonch screamed for her life. When she screamed, the man pulled out a handgun and threatened to kill her if she didn’t stop. DaRonch found herself falling out of the car and then suddenly pushed up against the side of it by the madman. He had a crowbar in his hand and was ready to hit her head. Terror-struck, she kicked his genitals and managed to break free. DaRonch ran towards the road and caught the attention of a couple driving by. They stopped and DaRonch frantically jumped into their car. She was crying hysterically and told them a man had tried to kill her. They immediately took her to the police.

Sobbing, with the handcuffs still dangling from her wrists, she told the police what one of their men had done. But there was no man with the name of Roseland that worked there. Immediately police were dispatched to the place where DaRonch had struggled for her life just an hour earlier but the madman was long gone. However, the police were able to get a description of the man and his car and a few days later, from off the girl’s coat, a blood type. The blood was type O, the same as Ted Bundy’s, as police were later to learn.

That same evening, the director of a play at Viewmont High School was approached by a handsome man who asked for her assistance in identifying a car. Yet, she was far too busy and refused him. Again, he later approached her and asked for her assistance, and again she refused him. Something seemed odd, almost scary about the man, but she ignored it and kept on with the work at hand. It disturbed her to see the man again in the back of the auditorium and she wondered what it was he really wanted.

Debby Kent, who was watching the evening performance along with her parents, left early to pick up her brother at the bowling alley. She told her parents that she’d be back to pick them up shortly, but she never did. In fact, she never made it to the car, which stood empty in the school parking lot. Debby Kent was nowhere to be found. What police did find in the parking lot was a small handcuff key. Later, when police tried to fit the key that they found into the handcuffs worn by DaRonch earlier that night, it was a perfect match. Almost a month later, a man would call police to tell them that he had seen a tan VW bug speed away from the high school parking lot the night of Kent’s disappearance.

On January 12, 1975, Caryn Campbell; her fiancé, Dr. Raymond Gadowski; and his two children took a trip to Colorado. Caryn hoped she could enjoy the break away from work and spend more time with the children, while her fiancé attended a seminar. While relaxing in the lounge of her hotel with Gadowski and his son and daughter one night, she realized she had forgotten a magazine and returned to her room to retrieve it. Her fiancé and the children waited for her return in vain. He knew she was a bit ill that night and went back to the room to see if she needed help. Caryn was nowhere in sight. In fact, she had never made it to the room. By mid-morning, confused and worried, Gadowski informed the police of her disappearance. They searched every room in the hotel but they found no trace of Caryn.

Almost a month later and a few miles from where she had disappeared, a recreational worker found Caryn’s nude body lying a short distance from the road. Animals had ravaged her body, which made it difficult to determine the precise cause of death. However, it was evident that she received crushing fractures that could have been fatal.

Like many of the victims found in Utah and Washington , she had suffered from repeated blows to the head possibly made by a sharp instrument. According to Richard Larsen’s book Bundy: The Deliberate Stranger, the blows were so violent that one of her teeth was actually separated from the gum line in her mouth. There was also evidence that she had been raped. It was believed that she was murdered just hours after she disappeared. Apart from Caryn’s brutalized remains, there was little evidence to be found at the scene.

A few months after Caryn Campbell’s body was discovered, the remains of another person were found ten miles from where the bodies of Naslund and Ott were located. It was Brenda Ball, one of the seven women who had disappeared earlier that summer. The cause of her death was blows to the head with a blunt object.

Police searched the Taylor Mountains where the bodies were found. It would be only a couple days later when another body would be discovered. The body was that of Susan Rancourt, who had also disappeared earlier that summer. The Taylor Mountains had become the burial sight for the madman known as “Ted.” Two more bodies were found that month; one of them was Lynda Ann Healy. All of the victims suffered from severe head contusions from a blunt instrument, possibly a crowbar.

Police continued unsuccessfully to look for the killer. Five more women were found dead in Colorado under similar circumstances. They were not the last to fall victim to Ted’s killing spree.

A Suspect

On August 16, 1975, Sergeant Bob Hayward was patrolling an area just outside of Salt Lake County when he spotted a suspicious tan VW bug driving past him. He knew the neighborhood well and almost all the residents that lived there and he couldn’t remember seeing the tan VW there before. When he put on his lights to get a better view of the VW’s license plate, the driver of the bug turned off his lights and began speeding away.

Immediately, Sergeant Hayward began to chase the vehicle. The car sped through two stop signs before it eventually pulled over into a nearby gas station. Hayward pulled up behind the reckless driver and watched as the occupant got out of his car and approached the police car. Hayward asked the young man for his registration and license, which was issued to Theodore Robert Bundy. Just then, two other troopers pulled up behind the tan VW. Hayward noticed that the passenger seat in Bundy’s car was missing. With mounting suspicion and Bundy’s permission, the three officers inspected the VW. The officers found a crowbar, ski mask, rope, handcuffs, wire and an ice pick. Bundy was immediately placed under arrest for suspicion of burglary.

Soon after Bundy’s arrest, police began to find connections between him and the man who attacked Carol DaRonch. The handcuffs that were found in Bundy’s car were the same make and brand that her attacker had used and the car he drove was similar to the one she had described. Furthermore, the crowbar found in Bundy’s car was similar to the weapon that had been used to threaten Carol earlier that November. They also suspected that Bundy was the man responsible for the kidnapping of Melissa Smith, Laura Aime and Debby Kent. There were just too many similarities among the cases for police to ignore. However, they knew they needed much more evidence to support the case against Bundy.

On October 2nd, 1975, Carol DaRonch along with the director of the Viewmont High School play and a friend of Debby Kent were asked to attend a line-up of seven men, one of whom was Bundy, at a Utah police station. Investigators were not surprised when Carol picked Ted from the line-up as the man who had attacked her. The play director and friend of Debby Kent also picked Ted from the line-up as the man they had seen wandering around the auditorium the night Debby Kent had disappeared. Although Ted repeatedly professed his innocence, police were almost positive they had their man. Soon after he was picked out of the line-up, investigators launched a full-blown investigation into the man they knew as Theodore Robert Bundy.

Investigation

During the fall of 1975, police investigators approached Elizabeth Kendall for whatever information she was able to give about Ted. They believed Elizabeth would most likely hold the key to Bundy’s whereabouts, habits and personality. What investigators learned would later help link Ted Bundy to the murder victims.

On September 16th, 1975, Elizabeth was called into the King County Police Major Crime Unit building in Washington State and interviewed by Detectives Jerry Thompson, Dennis Couch and Ira Beal. She was visibly stressed and nervous, but willing to offer the police any information necessary to help the case. When asked about Ted, she stated that on the nights of the murders, she could not account for him. Elizabeth also told police that he would often sleep during the day and go out at night, exactly where she didn’t know. She said that his interest in sex had waned during the last year. When he did show interest, he pressured her into bondage. When she told Bundy that she no longer wanted to participate in his bondage fantasies, he was very upset with her.

In a later interview with Elizabeth, investigators learned that Ted had plaster of Paris to make casts in his room, which she had noticed when they first began dating. She also noticed on a later occasion that in his car, Ted had a hatchet. But there was something else important to the case that Elizabeth would remember. She recalled that Ted had visited Lake Sammamish Park in July, where he had supposedly gone water skiing. A week after Ted had gone to Lake Sammamish Park, Janice Ott and Denise Naslund were reported missing.

After long hours of interviews with Elizabeth, investigators decided to shift their focus to Ted’s former girlfriend in California. When police contacted her, she told them of how he had abruptly changed his manner towards her from loving and affectionate to cruel and insensitive. Upon further questioning, police learned that Bundy’s relationship with his California girlfriend had overlapped with his relationship with Elizabeth and neither of them knew of the other woman. Ted seemed to be living a double life, filled with lies and betrayal. There was more to Ted than what investigators had initially expected.

Further investigation yielded more evidence that would later link him to other victims. Lynda Ann Healy was linked to Bundy through a cousin of his; more eyewitnesses would recognize him from Lake Sammamish Park during the time Ott and Naslund disappeared; an old friend of Bundy’s came forward saying he had seen pantyhose in the glove compartment of his car; plus Ted had spent a lot of time in the Taylor Mountains where the bodies of victims had been found. Bundy’s credibility was further dented when police discovered he purchased gas on credit cards in the towns where some of the victims had disappeared. Furthermore, a friend had seen him with his arm in a cast when there was no record of him ever having a broken arm. The evidence against Ted Bundy was building up, yet he still continued to profess his innocence.

Tribulations

On February 23, 1976 Ted was put on trial for the kidnapping of Carol DaRonch. Bundy sat in a relaxed manner in the courtroom, confident that he would be found innocent of the charges against him. He believed that there was no hard evidence to convict him, but he couldn’t have been more wrong. When Carol DaRonch took the stand, she told of her ordeal that she suffered sixteen months earlier. When asked if she were able to recognize the person who attacked her, she began to cry as she lifted her hand and pointed a finger to the man who had called himself “Officer Roseland.” The people in the courtroom turned their attention to Ted Bundy, who stared at DaRonch coldly as she pointed at him. Later in the trial, Ted had said he had never seen the defendant but he had no alibi to confirm his whereabouts the day of the attack.

The judge spent the weekend reviewing the case before he handed down a verdict. Two days later he would find Bundy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated kidnapping. Ted Bundy was later sentenced on June 30th to one to fifteen years in prison with the possibility of parole.

While in prison, Bundy was subjected to a psychological evaluation that the court had previously requested. In Anne Rule’s book The Stranger Beside Me , she stated that psychologists found Bundy to be neither “psychotic, neurotic, the victim of organic brain disease, alcoholic, addicted to drugs, suffering from a character disorder or amnesia, and was not a sexual deviate.” The psychologists concluded that he had a “strong dependency on women, and deduced that that dependency was suspect.” Upon further evaluation, they concluded that Ted had a “fear of being humiliated in his relationships with women.”

While Bundy remained incarcerated in Utah State Prison, investigators began a search for evidence connecting him to the murders of Caryn Campbell and Melissa Smith. What Bundy did not realize was that his legal problems would soon escalate. Detectives discovered in Bundy’s VW hairs that were examined by the FBI and found to be characteristically alike to Campbell’s and Smith’s hair. Further examination of Caryn Campbell’s remains showed that her skull bore impressions made by a blunt instrument, and those impressions matched the crowbar that had been discovered in Bundy’s car a year earlier. Colorado police filed charges against Bundy on October 22, 1976, for the murder of Caryn Campbell.

In April of 1977, Ted was transferred to Garfield County Jail in Colorado to await trial for the murder of Caryn Campbell. During preparation of his case, Bundy became increasingly unhappy with his representation. He believed his lawyer to be inept and incapable and eventually he fired him. Bundy, experienced in law, believed he could do the job better and he began to take up his own defense in the case. He felt confident that he would succeed at the trial scheduled for November 14, 1977. Bundy had a lot of work ahead of him. He was granted permission to leave the confines of the jail on occasion and utilize the courthouse library in Aspen, to conduct research. What police didn’t know was that he was planning an escape.

The Great Escape

On June 7th, during one of his trips to the library at the courthouse, Bundy managed to jump from an open window, injuring his ankle in the process, and escaped to freedom. He was not wearing any leg irons or handcuffs, so he did not stand out among the ordinary citizens in the town of Aspen. It was an escape that had been planned by Ted for a while. Aspen Police were quick to set up roadblocks surrounding the town, yet Ted knew to stay within the city limits for the time being and lay low. Police launched a massive land search, using scent tracking bloodhounds and 150 searchers in the hopes of catching Ted. However, Ted was able to elude them for days.

While on the run, Bundy managed to live off the food he stole from local cabins and nearby campers, occasionally sleeping in ones that were abandoned. Yet, Bundy knew that what he really needed was a car, which would better enable him to pass through police barriers. He couldn’t hide in Aspen forever. Ted believed that he was destined to be free. According to an interview with Michaud and Aynesworth, he felt as if he were invincible and claimed that, “nothing went wrong. If something did go wrong, the next thing that happened was so good it compensated. It was even better”. Sure enough, Bundy found his ticket out of town when he discovered a car with the keys left in it. But, his luck would not last long. While trying to flee Aspen in the stolen vehicle, he was spotted.

From then on, he was ordered to wear handcuffs and leg irons while conducting his research at the library in Aspen. However, Bundy was not the type of man who liked to be tied down.

Almost seven months later, Bundy again attempted an escape, but this time he was more successful. On December 30th, he crawled up into the ceiling of the Garfield County Jail and made his way to another part of the building. He managed to find another opening in the ceiling that led down into the closet of a jailer’s apartment. He sat and waited until he knew the apartment was empty, then casually walked out of the front door to his freedom. His escape would go undiscovered until the following afternoon, more than fifteen hours later.

By the time police learned of his escape, Bundy was well on his way to Chicago. Chicago was one of the few stops that Bundy would make along the route to his final destination, sunny Florida. By mid January of 1978 Ted Bundy, using his newly acquired name Chris Hagen, had settled comfortably into a one-room apartment in Tallahassee, Florida.

Ted Bundy enjoyed his new found freedom in a place that knew little if nothing about him or his past. Bundy was stimulated by intelligence and youth and felt comfortable in his new environment nearby Florida State University. He spent much of his free time walking around F.S.U.’s campus, occasionally ducking into classes unnoticed and listening in on lectures. When he was not wandering around campus, he would spend his time in his apartment watching the television he had stolen. Theft became second nature to Bundy. Almost everything in his apartment was stolen merchandise. Even the food he ate was purchased from stolen credit cards. Under the circumstances, Bundy seemed to have enough material things to make him content. What he didn’t have and what he missed the most was companionship.

Murder On The Run

On Saturday night, January 14th, few of the sorority sisters could be found at the Chi Omega House. Most were out dancing or at keg parties on campus. It wasn’t unusual for the sisters to stay out late, since there was no curfew. In fact, it was pretty normal for the girls to return in the early morning hours. However, none of the sisters was prepared to confront the horror that awaited them back at their sorority house later that night.

At 3 AM, Nita Neary was dropped off at the sorority house by her boyfriend after attending a keg party on campus. Upon reaching the door to the house, she noticed it standing wide open. Soon after she had entered the building, she heard some movement, as if someone was running in the rooms above her. Suddenly, she heard the footsteps approaching the staircase near her and she hid in a doorway, out of view. She watched as a man with a knit blue cap pulled over his eyes, holding a log with cloth around it, ran down the stairs and out the door.

Nita’s first thought was that the sorority house had been burglarized. She immediately ran up the stairs to wake her roommate, Nancy. Nita told her of the strange man she saw leaving the building. Unsure of what to do, the girls made their way to the housemother’s room. Yet, before they were able to make it to her room, they saw another roommate, Karen, staggering down the hall. Her entire head was soaked with blood. While Nancy tried to help Karen, Nita woke up the housemother and the two of them went to check on another roommate nearby. They found Kathy in her room alive, but in a horrible state. She was also covered in blood that was seeping from open wounds on her head. Hysterical, Nancy ran to the phone and dialed the police.

Police later found two more girls dead in their rooms lying in their beds. Someone had attacked them while they slept. Lisa Levy was the first girl that officers found dead. Pathologists who later performed the autopsy on her found that she had been beaten on the head with a log, raped and strangled. Upon further examination, they discovered bite marks on her buttocks and on one of her nipples. In fact, Lisa’s nipple had been so severely bitten that it was almost severed from the rest of her breast. She had also been sexually assaulted with a hair spray bottle.

Post mortem reports on Margaret Bowman showed that she suffered similar fatal injuries, although she had not been sexually assaulted and she showed no signs of bite marks. She had been strangled by a pair of panty hose that were later found at the scene of the crime. She had also been beaten on the head, yet so severely that her skull was splintered and a portion of her brain was exposed. Neither she nor Lisa Levy showed signs of a struggle.

Investigators who interviewed the survivors learned nothing. None of the girls had any memory of the events of that fatal night. Like Levy and Bowman, they too had been asleep when they were attacked. The only witness was Nita Neary, who was able to catch a profile of the killer as he fled. However, the assailant would not travel far before claiming another victim that night.

Caught Again

Less than a mile from the Chi Omega House, a young woman was awakened by loud banging noises coming from the apartment next to hers. She wondered what her friend in the adjoining apartment was doing to make so much noise at four in the morning. As the banging noises persisted, she became suspicious and woke her roommate. As they listened, they heard Cheryl next door moaning. Frightened, they called over to her house to see if she was all right. When no one picked up the phone, they immediately called the police.

The police came quickly. After all, they were just blocks away at the Chi Omega House tending to the crime scene there. They entered Cheryl’s apartment and walked to her bedroom, where they found her sitting on the bed. Her face was just beginning to swell from the bludgeoning to her head. She was still somewhat conscious and half nude, but lucky to be alive. Police discovered a mask at the foot of her bed. According to Anne Rule in The Stranger Beside Me the mask that was found “resembled almost exactly the mask taken from Ted Bundy’s car when he’d been arrested in Utah in August of 1975.”

Police investigators worked diligently on the evidence that was left behind. They were able to get a blood type from the assailant, sperm samples and fingerprint smudges. Unfortunately, most of the evidence that was tested proved to be inconclusive. The only firm evidence investigators were able to obtain were the hairs found in the mask, teeth impressions from the bite marks on the victims and an eyewitness account from Nita Neary. Investigators did not have a suspect and Ted Bundy was unknown to them.

On February 9th, 1978, Lake City police received a phone call from the distressed parents of twelve-year-old Kimberly Leach. They were hysterical and said that their daughter had disappeared that day. Police launched a massive search to find the missing girl, who disappeared from her school grounds. The person who last saw her was her friend Priscilla who saw Kimberly get into the car of a stranger the day she disappeared. Unfortunately, she was unable to accurately remember the car or the driver. They found Kimberly’s body eight weeks later in a state park in Suwannee County, Florida. The young girl’s body yielded little information due to advanced decomposition. However, police were to later find the evidence they needed in a van driven by Ted Bundy.

A few days before Kimberly Leach had disappeared, a strange man in a white van approached a fourteen-year-old girl as she waited for her brother to pick her up. The man had claimed he was from the fire department and asked her if she attended the school nearby. She found it strange that an on-duty fireman was wearing plaid pants and a navy jacket. She began to feel uncomfortable. She had been warned on many occasions by her father, who was the Chief of Detectives for the Jacksonville Police Department, not to talk with strangers. She was relieved when her brother drove up. Suspicious of the man, her brother ordered her into the car, followed the man and wrote down his license plate to give it to his father.

Upon hearing of the stranger in the white van, Detective James Parmenter had the license plate checked out. He learned it belonged to a man named Randall Ragen, and he decided to pay him a visit. Ragen informed the detective that his plates had been stolen and he had already been issued new ones. The detective later found out that the van his children had seen was also stolen and he had an idea who it might have been. He decided to take his children to the police station to show them a stack of mug shots, Bundy’s picture being among them. He hadn’t realized how close he had been to losing his own daughter. Both of his children recognized the man in the van as Ted Bundy.

The van long since discarded, Bundy set out towards Pensacola, Florida in a new stolen car. This time he managed to find a vehicle he was more comfortable driving, a VW bug. Officer David Lee was patrolling an area in West Pensacola when he saw an orange VW at 10 p.m. on February 15th. He knew the area well and most of the residents, yet he had never before seen the car. Officer Lee decided to run a check on the license plates and soon found out that they were stolen. Immediately, he turned on his lights and began to follow the VW.

Once again, as had happened in Utah several years earlier, Bundy started to flee. Suddenly, Bundy pulled over and stopped. Officer Lee ordered him out of his car and told Bundy to lay down with his hands in front. To Lee’s surprise, as he had begun to handcuff Bundy, he rolled over and began to fight the officer. Bundy managed to fight his way free and run. Just as soon as he did, Lee fired his weapon at him. Bundy dropped to the ground, pretending to have been shot. As the officer approached him lying on the ground, he was again attacked by Bundy. However, the officer was able to overpower him. He was handcuffed and taken to the police station. Bundy had finally been caught.

Ted Bundy

By Rachael Bell

The Ted Bundy Story – Attack!

Joni Lenz’s roommates had not been particularly worried when they didn’t see her in the morning of January 4, 1974. But when she still wasn’t up and around that afternoon, they went into her basement bedroom to see if she was sick.A horrifying sight confronted them.

Ann Rule in her now famous classic book on the subject, The Stranger Beside Me, wrote that Joni, 18, had been badly beaten. A bed rod had been torn away from the bed and savagely rammed into her vagina. Shortly after the discovery, Joni was transported to the hospital in a comatose state, suffering from damages that would affect her for the rest of her life.

However, she was lucky to be alive. Joni was one of the few victims to survive an attack by Ted Bundy, who reigned terror across the United States between 1974 and 1978. There were an estimated 35 more victims after Joni who were not so fortunate. Stephen Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth in The Only Living Witness suggest that perhaps 40 young women may have fallen prey to Bundy, but only Bundy knew for sure. It is a number that Bundy has carried with him to his grave.

The Early Years

Theodore Robert Cowell was born on November 24, 1946 to Louise Cowell following her stay of three months at the Elizabeth Lund Home for Unwed Mothers in Vermont . Ted’s biological father, who was an Air Force veteran, was unknown to his son throughout his life. Shortly after his birth, Ted and his mother moved back to the home of his grandparents in Philadelphia . While growing up, Ted was led to believe that his grandparents were his parents and his natural mother was his older sister. The charade was created in order to protect his biological mother from harsh criticism and prejudice of being an unwed mother.

At the age of four, Ted and his mother moved to Tacoma , Washington to live with relatives. A year after the move, Louise fell in love with a military cook named Johnnie Culpepper Bundy. In May 1951, the couple was married and Ted assumed his stepfather’s last name, which he would keep for the rest of his life.

Over the years, the Bundy family added four other siblings, who Ted spent much of his time babysitting after school. Ted’s stepfather tried to form a bond between himself and Ted by including him in camping trips and other father-son activities. However, Johnnie’s attempts were unsuccessful and Ted remained emotionally detached from his stepfather. According to Stephen Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth’s book Ted Bundy: Conversations with a Killer , Ted became increasingly uncomfortable around his stepfather and preferred to be alone. This desire to be by himself increased and possibly led to his later inability to socially interact comfortably with others.

As a youth, Ted was terribly shy, self-doubting and uncomfortable in social situations. He was often teased and made the butt of pranks by bullies in his junior high school. Michaud analyzed Ted’s behavior and decided that he was “not like other children, he looked and acted like them, but he was haunted by something else: a fear, a doubt — sometimes only a vague uneasiness-? that inhabited his mind with the subtlety of a cat. He felt it for years, but he didn’t recognize it for what it was until much later.” Regardless of the humiliating experiences he sometimes suffered from being different, he was able to maintain a high grade-point average that would continue throughout high school and later into college.

During his high school years, Ted appeared to blossom into a more gregarious young man. His popularity increased significantly and he was considered to be “well dressed and exceptionally well mannered.” Despite his emerging popularity, Ted seldom dated. His interests lay more in extra-curricular activities such as skiing and politics. In fact, Ted had a particular fascination with politics, an interest that would years later temporarily land him in the political arena.

Following high school, Ted attended college at the University of Puget Sound and the University of Washington . He worked his way through school by taking on several low-level jobs, such as a bus boy and shoe clerk. However, he seldom stayed with one position for very long. His employers considered him to be unreliable.

Although Ted was inconsistent with his work outside of school, he was very focused on his studies and grades. Yet, his focus changed during the spring of 1967 when he began a relationship that would forever change his life.

Ted met a girl that was everything he had ever dreamed of in a woman. She was a beautiful and highly sophisticated woman from a wealthy Californian family. Ted couldn’t believe someone from her “class” would have an interest in someone like him. Although they had many differences, they both loved to ski and it was during their many ski trips together that he fell in love. She was really Ted’s first love, and, according to Ann Rule, possibly the first woman with whom he became involved with sexually. However, she was not as infatuated with Ted as he was with her. In fact, she liked Ted a lot but believed he had no real direction or future goals. Ted tried too hard to impress her, even if that meant lying, something that she didn’t like at all.

Michaud writes that Ted won a summer scholarship to the prestigious Stanford University in California just to impress her, but at Stanford, his immaturity was exposed. He writes, “Ted did not understand why the mask he had been using had failed him. This first tentative foray into the sophisticated world had ended in disaster.”

In 1968, after his girlfriend graduated from the University of Washington, she broke off relations with Ted. She was a practical young woman and seemed to realize that Ted had some serious character flaws that took him out of the running as “husband material.”

Ted never recovered from the break-up. Nothing, including school, seemed to hold any interest for him and he eventually dropped out, dumb-founded and depressed over the break-up. He managed to stay in touch with her by writing after she returned to California, yet she seemed uninterested in getting back together. But Ted became obsessed with this young woman and he couldn’t get her out of his mind. It was an obsession that would span his lifetime and lead to a series of events that would shock the world.

A Time of Change

To make matters worse, in 1969 Bundy learned his true parentage. His “sister” was actually his mother and his “parents,” were actually his grandparents. Not unexpectedly, this late discovery had a rather serious impact on him. Michaud says that his attitude towards his mother did not change much, but he became nasty and surly to Johnnie Bundy.

It’s hard to say whether the knowledge that his mother had deceived him all his life had any impact on his other character flaws which were beginning to blossom. Throughout Ted Bundy’s high school and college years, there was always a cloud over his reputation for honesty. Many people close to him suspected him of petty thievery.

According to Marilyn Bardsley, Crime Library’s serial killer expert, Ted’s psychopathic nature was being revealed, but most of the people that witnessed it did not realize what they were experiencing. Stealing without any sense of guilt and, in fact, a sense of entitlement, is a common trait in a psychopath. Also, psychopaths get a thrill from the the excitement and danger that stealing and shoplifting presents to them. Ted’s dishonesty evolved from stealing small things in work and school situations to shoplifting to burglarizing homes for televisions and other items of value.

He changed from a shy and introverted person to a more focused and dominant character. He was driven, as if to prove himself to the world. He re-enrolled at the University of Washington and studied psychology, a subject in which he excelled. Bundy became an honors student and was well liked by his professors at the university.

It is also at this time when Ted met Elizabeth Kendall (a pseudonym under which she wrote The Phantom Prince: My Life With Ted Bundy ), a woman with whom he would be involved with for almost five years. Elizabeth worked as a secretary and was a somewhat shy and quiet woman. She was a divorcee who seemed to have found in Ted Bundy the perfect father figure for her daughter. Elizabeth was deeply in love with Ted from the start and wanted to one day marry him. However, Ted said he was not yet ready for marriage because he felt there was still too much for him to accomplish. She knew that Ted didn’t feel as strongly for her as she did him. She felt that on many occasions Ted was meeting with other women. Yet, Elizabeth hoped that time would bring him around to her and he would eventually change his ways. She was unaware of his past relationship with his girlfriend from California and that they still continued to keep in contact and visit each other.

Outwardly, Ted’s life in 1969-1972 seemed to be changing for the better. He was more confident, with high hopes for his future. Ted began sending out applications to various law schools, while at the same time he became active in politics. He worked on a campaign to re-elect a Washington governor, a position that allowed Ted to form bonds with politically powerful people in the Republican Party. Ted also performed volunteer work at a crisis clinic on a work-study program. He was pleased with the path his life was taking at this time, everything seemed to be going in the right direction. He was even commended by the Seattle police for saving the life of a three-year-old boy who was drowning in a lake.

In 1973, during a business trip to California for the Washington Republican Party, Ted met up with his old girlfriend. She was amazed at the transformation in Ted. He was much more confident and mature, not as aimless as he was when they last dated. They met several other times afterwards, unknown to his steady girlfriend, Elizabeth. During Ted’s business trips he romantically courted the lovely young woman from California and she once again fell in love with him.

Marriage was a topic brought up more than once by Ted over their many intimate rendezvous during that fall and winter. Yet, just as suddenly as their romance began, it changed radically. Where once Ted lavished affection upon her, he was suddenly cold and despondent. It seemed as if Ted had lost all interest in her in just a few weeks. She was clearly confused about this “new” Ted. In February 1974, with no warning or explanation, Ted ended all contact with her. His plan of revenge worked. He rejected her as she had once rejected him. She was never to see or hear from Ted again.

A Time of Terror

Lynda Ann Healy was a very accomplished young woman. At age 21, morning radio listeners heard her friendly voice announce the ski conditions for the major ski areas in western Washington. She was a beautiful girl, tall and slim with shiny clean, long brown hair and a ready smile.

The product of a good family and an uppper-middle-class environment, she was an excellent singer and a senior at the University of Washington, majoring in psychology. She loved working with children who were mentally handicapped.

Lynda shared a house near the university with four other young women. On January 31, 1974, she and a few friends went for a few beers after dinner at Dante’s, a tavern that was popular with the university students. They didn’t stay long and Lynda went home to watch television and talk on the phone to her boyfriend. Then Lynda went to bed. The roommate in the room next to Lynda heard no noises coming from Lynda’s room that night.

Lynda had to get up every morning at 5:30 to get to her job at the radio station. The roommmate heard Lynda’s alarm go off at 5:30 as it did customarily. What was unusual was that the alarm kept buzzing. When the roommate finally went in to shut off the alarm, she heard the phone ring. It was the radio station calling to see where Lynda was. The bed in Lynda’s room was made and nothing looked disturbed, so the roommate assumed that Lynda was on her way to work.

When her parents called that afternoon to find out why Lydna had not shown up for dinner as expected, everyone became worried. Nobody had seen her. She seemed to have vanished from the house.

Lynda’s parents called the police. In Lynda’s room, they found that her bed had been made up in a way that Lynda had never made it up before. In fact, Lynda was not normally one to make up her bed. Oddly, a pillowcase and the top sheet were missing on this carefully made-up bed.

A small bloodstain of the same blood type as Lydna’s was found on the pillow and the bottom sheet. Blood was also on her nightgown that was carefully hung in the closet. An outfit of hers was missing.

Another alarming clue was that one of the doors to the house was unlocked when the girls were always vigilant about locking it.

The police were not initially convinced that Lynda had been a victim of foul play, so no fingerprint, hair or fiber evidence was gathered.

Ultimately, police realized that an intruder had somehow gotten into the house, removed her nightgown and hung it in the closet, dressed her in a change of clothes, made up the bed, wrapped Lynda in the top bed sheet and carried her out of the house — very quietly.

Killing Spree

During that spring and summer, more women students suddenly and inexplicably vanished. There were striking similarities among many of the cases. For instance, all the girls were white, slender, single, wearing slacks at the time of disappearance, had hair that was long and parted in the middle and they all disappeared in the evening.

Also around the time of the disappearances, police interviewed college students who told them of a strange man who was seen wearing a cast on either his arm or leg. Supposedly, the stranger seemed to be struggling with books and asking young women nearby for assistance. Other eyewitnesses reported a strange man in the campus parking lot who had a cast and asked for assistance with his car, a VW bug that he apparently had difficulty starting. Interestingly, around the same area where two of the girls mysteriously disappeared, there was seen such a man wearing a cast on his arm or leg.

Finally, in August of 1974 in Washington’s Lake Sammamish State Park, the remains of some of the missing girls were found and two were later identified. It was remarkable that police were able to identify two of the bodies considering what was left — strands of various colors of hair, five thigh bones, a couple of skulls and a jaw bone. The girls identified were Janice Ott and Denise Naslund, who disappeared on the same day, July 14th.

The last people to have seen Ott, a couple picnicking near by, remembered a handsome young man approaching the young woman. From what the couple could hear of the conversation between Ott and the young man, his name was Ted and he had difficulty loading his boat onto his car because his arm was in a cast. He asked Ott for assistance and she agreed to help. That was the last time twenty-three-year-old Janice Ott was seen alive.

Denise Naslund was spending the afternoon with her boyfriend and friends when she walked towards the restroom in the park, never to return again. That afternoon, around where she disappeared, a man who wore a cast and asked for help with his boat approached a couple of women. They were unable to assist the attractive young man. However, Denise Naslund was the kind of girl to help someone in need, especially someone with a broken arm–an act of kindness that cost her life. Denise Naslund was not the last woman to disappear and be found dead.

This time the killer would travel to different states.

Midvale, Utah’s, Police Chief Louis Smith had a seventeen-year-old daughter whom he frequently warned about the dangers of the world. He had seen all too much during his career and worried for his daughter’s safety. Yet, his worst fears were to come true on October 18, 1974 when his daughter Melissa disappeared. She had been found 9 days after her disappearance — strangled, sodomized and raped.

Thirteen days later on Halloween, seventeen-year-old Laura Aime disappeared. She was found on Thanksgiving Day in the Wasatch Mountains lying dead by a river. Aime had been beaten about the head and face with a crowbar, raped and sodomized. It was suspected that she was killed someplace other than where she was found due to the lack of blood at the crime scene. Other than her body, there was no physical evidence for the police to use.

Similarities

The similarities with the Washington State murders caught the attention of local police in Utah , who were frantically searching for the man responsible for the grisly crimes. With each murder, the evidence was slowly mounting. Utah police consulted with Washington State investigators. Almost all agreed that it was highly likely that the same man who committed the crimes in Washington State had also been responsible for the murders in Utah . Thanks to eyewitness accounts of the man in the cast seen near the areas where many of the women had disappeared, they were able to come up with a composite of the could-be-killer who called himself “Ted.”

When a close friend of Elizabeth Kendall saw the account of Melissa Smith’s murder in the paper and the composite of the could-be-killer, she knew that Ted Bundy must be the man. It wasn’t just her intense dislike and mistrust for Elizabeth ‘s boyfriend that led her to believe that Ted was the “man,” but also the fact that he looked so much like the composite picture in the paper.

Deep down, Elizabeth must have known her friend was right. After all, Ted did resemble the sketch, he drove a VW similar to those seen by witnesses and she had seen crutches in his room even though he never injured his leg. According to the book The Phantom Prince: My Life with Ted Bundy, which was later written by Kendall , she anonymously called the Seattle Police Department in August 1974 and stated that her boyfriend “might be involved” in the recent murder cases. She called again later that fall and gave more pertinent information that might assist the investigators in the case. She also agreed to give recent pictures of Ted, to later be shown to witnesses. However, the witnesses did not make a positive I.D. after viewing the pictures and Elizabeth ‘s report was eventually filed away. The investigators working the case decided to turn their attention towards more likely suspects and Ted Bundy was forgotten until a few years later.

The killer continued to elude investigators, assuming that by operating in different states the police would be unable to compare the cases. His behavior became increasingly bold and risky as he approached women. Those who escaped his advances would later recognize him and provide the police with valuable information.

Risky Attacks

It was on November 8th, 1974, when police investigators were to get the break in the case for which they had been waiting. That Friday evening, a strange but handsome man in a book store at a Utah mall approached eighteen-year-old Carol DaRonch. The stranger told her that he had seen someone trying to break into her car and asked her to go along with him to the parking lot to see if anything had been stolen.

Carol thought that the man must have been a mall security guard because he seemed so in control of the situation. When they arrived at the car, she checked it and informed the man everything was there. The man, who identified himself as Officer Roseland, was not satisfied and wanted to escort her to police headquarters. He wanted her to ID the supposed criminal and file a complaint. When he led her to a VW bug, she became suspicious and asked for identification. He quickly showed her a gold badge and then escorted her into the car.

He drove off quickly in the opposite direction of the police station and, after a short while, he suddenly stopped the car. Fear had set into Carol DaRonch. The “police officer” suddenly grabbed her and tried to put handcuffs on her. DaRonch screamed for her life. When she screamed, the man pulled out a handgun and threatened to kill her if she didn’t stop. DaRonch found herself falling out of the car and then suddenly pushed up against the side of it by the madman. He had a crowbar in his hand and was ready to hit her head. Terror-struck, she kicked his genitals and managed to break free. DaRonch ran towards the road and caught the attention of a couple driving by. They stopped and DaRonch frantically jumped into their car. She was crying hysterically and told them a man had tried to kill her. They immediately took her to the police.

Sobbing, with the handcuffs still dangling from her wrists, she told the police what one of their men had done. But there was no man with the name of Roseland that worked there. Immediately police were dispatched to the place where DaRonch had struggled for her life just an hour earlier but the madman was long gone. However, the police were able to get a description of the man and his car and a few days later, from off the girl’s coat, a blood type. The blood was type O, the same as Ted Bundy’s, as police were later to learn.

That same evening, the director of a play at Viewmont High School was approached by a handsome man who asked for her assistance in identifying a car. Yet, she was far too busy and refused him. Again, he later approached her and asked for her assistance, and again she refused him. Something seemed odd, almost scary about the man, but she ignored it and kept on with the work at hand. It disturbed her to see the man again in the back of the auditorium and she wondered what it was he really wanted.

Debby Kent, who was watching the evening performance along with her parents, left early to pick up her brother at the bowling alley. She told her parents that she’d be back to pick them up shortly, but she never did. In fact, she never made it to the car, which stood empty in the school parking lot. Debby Kent was nowhere to be found. What police did find in the parking lot was a small handcuff key. Later, when police tried to fit the key that they found into the handcuffs worn by DaRonch earlier that night, it was a perfect match. Almost a month later, a man would call police to tell them that he had seen a tan VW bug speed away from the high school parking lot the night of Kent’s disappearance.

On January 12, 1975, Caryn Campbell; her fiancé, Dr. Raymond Gadowski; and his two children took a trip to Colorado. Caryn hoped she could enjoy the break away from work and spend more time with the children, while her fiancé attended a seminar. While relaxing in the lounge of her hotel with Gadowski and his son and daughter one night, she realized she had forgotten a magazine and returned to her room to retrieve it. Her fiancé and the children waited for her return in vain. He knew she was a bit ill that night and went back to the room to see if she needed help. Caryn was nowhere in sight. In fact, she had never made it to the room. By mid-morning, confused and worried, Gadowski informed the police of her disappearance. They searched every room in the hotel but they found no trace of Caryn.

Almost a month later and a few miles from where she had disappeared, a recreational worker found Caryn’s nude body lying a short distance from the road. Animals had ravaged her body, which made it difficult to determine the precise cause of death. However, it was evident that she received crushing fractures that could have been fatal.

Like many of the victims found in Utah and Washington , she had suffered from repeated blows to the head possibly made by a sharp instrument. According to Richard Larsen’s book Bundy: The Deliberate Stranger, the blows were so violent that one of her teeth was actually separated from the gum line in her mouth. There was also evidence that she had been raped. It was believed that she was murdered just hours after she disappeared. Apart from Caryn’s brutalized remains, there was little evidence to be found at the scene.

A few months after Caryn Campbell’s body was discovered, the remains of another person were found ten miles from where the bodies of Naslund and Ott were located. It was Brenda Ball, one of the seven women who had disappeared earlier that summer. The cause of her death was blows to the head with a blunt object.

Police searched the Taylor Mountains where the bodies were found. It would be only a couple days later when another body would be discovered. The body was that of Susan Rancourt, who had also disappeared earlier that summer. The Taylor Mountains had become the burial sight for the madman known as “Ted.” Two more bodies were found that month; one of them was Lynda Ann Healy. All of the victims suffered from severe head contusions from a blunt instrument, possibly a crowbar.

Police continued unsuccessfully to look for the killer. Five more women were found dead in Colorado under similar circumstances. They were not the last to fall victim to Ted’s killing spree.

A Suspect

On August 16, 1975, Sergeant Bob Hayward was patrolling an area just outside of Salt Lake County when he spotted a suspicious tan VW bug driving past him. He knew the neighborhood well and almost all the residents that lived there and he couldn’t remember seeing the tan VW there before. When he put on his lights to get a better view of the VW’s license plate, the driver of the bug turned off his lights and began speeding away.

Immediately, Sergeant Hayward began to chase the vehicle. The car sped through two stop signs before it eventually pulled over into a nearby gas station. Hayward pulled up behind the reckless driver and watched as the occupant got out of his car and approached the police car. Hayward asked the young man for his registration and license, which was issued to Theodore Robert Bundy. Just then, two other troopers pulled up behind the tan VW. Hayward noticed that the passenger seat in Bundy’s car was missing. With mounting suspicion and Bundy’s permission, the three officers inspected the VW. The officers found a crowbar, ski mask, rope, handcuffs, wire and an ice pick. Bundy was immediately placed under arrest for suspicion of burglary.

Soon after Bundy’s arrest, police began to find connections between him and the man who attacked Carol DaRonch. The handcuffs that were found in Bundy’s car were the same make and brand that her attacker had used and the car he drove was similar to the one she had described. Furthermore, the crowbar found in Bundy’s car was similar to the weapon that had been used to threaten Carol earlier that November. They also suspected that Bundy was the man responsible for the kidnapping of Melissa Smith, Laura Aime and Debby Kent. There were just too many similarities among the cases for police to ignore. However, they knew they needed much more evidence to support the case against Bundy.

On October 2nd, 1975, Carol DaRonch along with the director of the Viewmont High School play and a friend of Debby Kent were asked to attend a line-up of seven men, one of whom was Bundy, at a Utah police station. Investigators were not surprised when Carol picked Ted from the line-up as the man who had attacked her. The play director and friend of Debby Kent also picked Ted from the line-up as the man they had seen wandering around the auditorium the night Debby Kent had disappeared. Although Ted repeatedly professed his innocence, police were almost positive they had their man. Soon after he was picked out of the line-up, investigators launched a full-blown investigation into the man they knew as Theodore Robert Bundy.

Investigation

During the fall of 1975, police investigators approached Elizabeth Kendall for whatever information she was able to give about Ted. They believed Elizabeth would most likely hold the key to Bundy’s whereabouts, habits and personality. What investigators learned would later help link Ted Bundy to the murder victims.

On September 16th, 1975, Elizabeth was called into the King County Police Major Crime Unit building in Washington State and interviewed by Detectives Jerry Thompson, Dennis Couch and Ira Beal. She was visibly stressed and nervous, but willing to offer the police any information necessary to help the case. When asked about Ted, she stated that on the nights of the murders, she could not account for him. Elizabeth also told police that he would often sleep during the day and go out at night, exactly where she didn’t know. She said that his interest in sex had waned during the last year. When he did show interest, he pressured her into bondage. When she told Bundy that she no longer wanted to participate in his bondage fantasies, he was very upset with her.

In a later interview with Elizabeth, investigators learned that Ted had plaster of Paris to make casts in his room, which she had noticed when they first began dating. She also noticed on a later occasion that in his car, Ted had a hatchet. But there was something else important to the case that Elizabeth would remember. She recalled that Ted had visited Lake Sammamish Park in July, where he had supposedly gone water skiing. A week after Ted had gone to Lake Sammamish Park, Janice Ott and Denise Naslund were reported missing.

After long hours of interviews with Elizabeth, investigators decided to shift their focus to Ted’s former girlfriend in California. When police contacted her, she told them of how he had abruptly changed his manner towards her from loving and affectionate to cruel and insensitive. Upon further questioning, police learned that Bundy’s relationship with his California girlfriend had overlapped with his relationship with Elizabeth and neither of them knew of the other woman. Ted seemed to be living a double life, filled with lies and betrayal. There was more to Ted than what investigators had initially expected.

Further investigation yielded more evidence that would later link him to other victims. Lynda Ann Healy was linked to Bundy through a cousin of his; more eyewitnesses would recognize him from Lake Sammamish Park during the time Ott and Naslund disappeared; an old friend of Bundy’s came forward saying he had seen pantyhose in the glove compartment of his car; plus Ted had spent a lot of time in the Taylor Mountains where the bodies of victims had been found. Bundy’s credibility was further dented when police discovered he purchased gas on credit cards in the towns where some of the victims had disappeared. Furthermore, a friend had seen him with his arm in a cast when there was no record of him ever having a broken arm. The evidence against Ted Bundy was building up, yet he still continued to profess his innocence.

Tribulations

On February 23, 1976 Ted was put on trial for the kidnapping of Carol DaRonch. Bundy sat in a relaxed manner in the courtroom, confident that he would be found innocent of the charges against him. He believed that there was no hard evidence to convict him, but he couldn’t have been more wrong. When Carol DaRonch took the stand, she told of her ordeal that she suffered sixteen months earlier. When asked if she were able to recognize the person who attacked her, she began to cry as she lifted her hand and pointed a finger to the man who had called himself “Officer Roseland.” The people in the courtroom turned their attention to Ted Bundy, who stared at DaRonch coldly as she pointed at him. Later in the trial, Ted had said he had never seen the defendant but he had no alibi to confirm his whereabouts the day of the attack.

The judge spent the weekend reviewing the case before he handed down a verdict. Two days later he would find Bundy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated kidnapping. Ted Bundy was later sentenced on June 30th to one to fifteen years in prison with the possibility of parole.

While in prison, Bundy was subjected to a psychological evaluation that the court had previously requested. In Anne Rule’s book The Stranger Beside Me , she stated that psychologists found Bundy to be neither “psychotic, neurotic, the victim of organic brain disease, alcoholic, addicted to drugs, suffering from a character disorder or amnesia, and was not a sexual deviate.” The psychologists concluded that he had a “strong dependency on women, and deduced that that dependency was suspect.” Upon further evaluation, they concluded that Ted had a “fear of being humiliated in his relationships with women.”

While Bundy remained incarcerated in Utah State Prison, investigators began a search for evidence connecting him to the murders of Caryn Campbell and Melissa Smith. What Bundy did not realize was that his legal problems would soon escalate. Detectives discovered in Bundy’s VW hairs that were examined by the FBI and found to be characteristically alike to Campbell’s and Smith’s hair. Further examination of Caryn Campbell’s remains showed that her skull bore impressions made by a blunt instrument, and those impressions matched the crowbar that had been discovered in Bundy’s car a year earlier. Colorado police filed charges against Bundy on October 22, 1976, for the murder of Caryn Campbell.

In April of 1977, Ted was transferred to Garfield County Jail in Colorado to await trial for the murder of Caryn Campbell. During preparation of his case, Bundy became increasingly unhappy with his representation. He believed his lawyer to be inept and incapable and eventually he fired him. Bundy, experienced in law, believed he could do the job better and he began to take up his own defense in the case. He felt confident that he would succeed at the trial scheduled for November 14, 1977. Bundy had a lot of work ahead of him. He was granted permission to leave the confines of the jail on occasion and utilize the courthouse library in Aspen, to conduct research. What police didn’t know was that he was planning an escape.

The Great Escape

On June 7th, during one of his trips to the library at the courthouse, Bundy managed to jump from an open window, injuring his ankle in the process, and escaped to freedom. He was not wearing any leg irons or handcuffs, so he did not stand out among the ordinary citizens in the town of Aspen. It was an escape that had been planned by Ted for a while. Aspen Police were quick to set up roadblocks surrounding the town, yet Ted knew to stay within the city limits for the time being and lay low. Police launched a massive land search, using scent tracking bloodhounds and 150 searchers in the hopes of catching Ted. However, Ted was able to elude them for days.

While on the run, Bundy managed to live off the food he stole from local cabins and nearby campers, occasionally sleeping in ones that were abandoned. Yet, Bundy knew that what he really needed was a car, which would better enable him to pass through police barriers. He couldn’t hide in Aspen forever. Ted believed that he was destined to be free. According to an interview with Michaud and Aynesworth, he felt as if he were invincible and claimed that, “nothing went wrong. If something did go wrong, the next thing that happened was so good it compensated. It was even better”. Sure enough, Bundy found his ticket out of town when he discovered a car with the keys left in it. But, his luck would not last long. While trying to flee Aspen in the stolen vehicle, he was spotted.

From then on, he was ordered to wear handcuffs and leg irons while conducting his research at the library in Aspen. However, Bundy was not the type of man who liked to be tied down.

Almost seven months later, Bundy again attempted an escape, but this time he was more successful. On December 30th, he crawled up into the ceiling of the Garfield County Jail and made his way to another part of the building. He managed to find another opening in the ceiling that led down into the closet of a jailer’s apartment. He sat and waited until he knew the apartment was empty, then casually walked out of the front door to his freedom. His escape would go undiscovered until the following afternoon, more than fifteen hours later.

By the time police learned of his escape, Bundy was well on his way to Chicago. Chicago was one of the few stops that Bundy would make along the route to his final destination, sunny Florida. By mid January of 1978 Ted Bundy, using his newly acquired name Chris Hagen, had settled comfortably into a one-room apartment in Tallahassee, Florida.

Ted Bundy enjoyed his new found freedom in a place that knew little if nothing about him or his past. Bundy was stimulated by intelligence and youth and felt comfortable in his new environment nearby Florida State University. He spent much of his free time walking around F.S.U.’s campus, occasionally ducking into classes unnoticed and listening in on lectures. When he was not wandering around campus, he would spend his time in his apartment watching the television he had stolen. Theft became second nature to Bundy. Almost everything in his apartment was stolen merchandise. Even the food he ate was purchased from stolen credit cards. Under the circumstances, Bundy seemed to have enough material things to make him content. What he didn’t have and what he missed the most was companionship.

Murder On The Run

On Saturday night, January 14th, few of the sorority sisters could be found at the Chi Omega House. Most were out dancing or at keg parties on campus. It wasn’t unusual for the sisters to stay out late, since there was no curfew. In fact, it was pretty normal for the girls to return in the early morning hours. However, none of the sisters was prepared to confront the horror that awaited them back at their sorority house later that night.

At 3 AM, Nita Neary was dropped off at the sorority house by her boyfriend after attending a keg party on campus. Upon reaching the door to the house, she noticed it standing wide open. Soon after she had entered the building, she heard some movement, as if someone was running in the rooms above her. Suddenly, she heard the footsteps approaching the staircase near her and she hid in a doorway, out of view. She watched as a man with a knit blue cap pulled over his eyes, holding a log with cloth around it, ran down the stairs and out the door.

Nita’s first thought was that the sorority house had been burglarized. She immediately ran up the stairs to wake her roommate, Nancy. Nita told her of the strange man she saw leaving the building. Unsure of what to do, the girls made their way to the housemother’s room. Yet, before they were able to make it to her room, they saw another roommate, Karen, staggering down the hall. Her entire head was soaked with blood. While Nancy tried to help Karen, Nita woke up the housemother and the two of them went to check on another roommate nearby. They found Kathy in her room alive, but in a horrible state. She was also covered in blood that was seeping from open wounds on her head. Hysterical, Nancy ran to the phone and dialed the police.

Police later found two more girls dead in their rooms lying in their beds. Someone had attacked them while they slept. Lisa Levy was the first girl that officers found dead. Pathologists who later performed the autopsy on her found that she had been beaten on the head with a log, raped and strangled. Upon further examination, they discovered bite marks on her buttocks and on one of her nipples. In fact, Lisa’s nipple had been so severely bitten that it was almost severed from the rest of her breast. She had also been sexually assaulted with a hair spray bottle.

Post mortem reports on Margaret Bowman showed that she suffered similar fatal injuries, although she had not been sexually assaulted and she showed no signs of bite marks. She had been strangled by a pair of panty hose that were later found at the scene of the crime. She had also been beaten on the head, yet so severely that her skull was splintered and a portion of her brain was exposed. Neither she nor Lisa Levy showed signs of a struggle.

Investigators who interviewed the survivors learned nothing. None of the girls had any memory of the events of that fatal night. Like Levy and Bowman, they too had been asleep when they were attacked. The only witness was Nita Neary, who was able to catch a profile of the killer as he fled. However, the assailant would not travel far before claiming another victim that night.

Caught Again

Less than a mile from the Chi Omega House, a young woman was awakened by loud banging noises coming from the apartment next to hers. She wondered what her friend in the adjoining apartment was doing to make so much noise at four in the morning. As the banging noises persisted, she became suspicious and woke her roommate. As they listened, they heard Cheryl next door moaning. Frightened, they called over to her house to see if she was all right. When no one picked up the phone, they immediately called the police.

The police came quickly. After all, they were just blocks away at the Chi Omega House tending to the crime scene there. They entered Cheryl’s apartment and walked to her bedroom, where they found her sitting on the bed. Her face was just beginning to swell from the bludgeoning to her head. She was still somewhat conscious and half nude, but lucky to be alive. Police discovered a mask at the foot of her bed. According to Anne Rule in The Stranger Beside Me the mask that was found “resembled almost exactly the mask taken from Ted Bundy’s car when he’d been arrested in Utah in August of 1975.”

Police investigators worked diligently on the evidence that was left behind. They were able to get a blood type from the assailant, sperm samples and fingerprint smudges. Unfortunately, most of the evidence that was tested proved to be inconclusive. The only firm evidence investigators were able to obtain were the hairs found in the mask, teeth impressions from the bite marks on the victims and an eyewitness account from Nita Neary. Investigators did not have a suspect and Ted Bundy was unknown to them.

On February 9th, 1978, Lake City police received a phone call from the distressed parents of twelve-year-old Kimberly Leach. They were hysterical and said that their daughter had disappeared that day. Police launched a massive search to find the missing girl, who disappeared from her school grounds. The person who last saw her was her friend Priscilla who saw Kimberly get into the car of a stranger the day she disappeared. Unfortunately, she was unable to accurately remember the car or the driver. They found Kimberly’s body eight weeks later in a state park in Suwannee County, Florida. The young girl’s body yielded little information due to advanced decomposition. However, police were to later find the evidence they needed in a van driven by Ted Bundy.

A few days before Kimberly Leach had disappeared, a strange man in a white van approached a fourteen-year-old girl as she waited for her brother to pick her up. The man had claimed he was from the fire department and asked her if she attended the school nearby. She found it strange that an on-duty fireman was wearing plaid pants and a navy jacket. She began to feel uncomfortable. She had been warned on many occasions by her father, who was the Chief of Detectives for the Jacksonville Police Department, not to talk with strangers. She was relieved when her brother drove up. Suspicious of the man, her brother ordered her into the car, followed the man and wrote down his license plate to give it to his father.

Upon hearing of the stranger in the white van, Detective James Parmenter had the license plate checked out. He learned it belonged to a man named Randall Ragen, and he decided to pay him a visit. Ragen informed the detective that his plates had been stolen and he had already been issued new ones. The detective later found out that the van his children had seen was also stolen and he had an idea who it might have been. He decided to take his children to the police station to show them a stack of mug shots, Bundy’s picture being among them. He hadn’t realized how close he had been to losing his own daughter. Both of his children recognized the man in the van as Ted Bundy.

The van long since discarded, Bundy set out towards Pensacola, Florida in a new stolen car. This time he managed to find a vehicle he was more comfortable driving, a VW bug. Officer David Lee was patrolling an area in West Pensacola when he saw an orange VW at 10 p.m. on February 15th. He knew the area well and most of the residents, yet he had never before seen the car. Officer Lee decided to run a check on the license plates and soon found out that they were stolen. Immediately, he turned on his lights and began to follow the VW.

Once again, as had happened in Utah several years earlier, Bundy started to flee. Suddenly, Bundy pulled over and stopped. Officer Lee ordered him out of his car and told Bundy to lay down with his hands in front. To Lee’s surprise, as he had begun to handcuff Bundy, he rolled over and began to fight the officer. Bundy managed to fight his way free and run. Just as soon as he did, Lee fired his weapon at him. Bundy dropped to the ground, pretending to have been shot. As the officer approached him lying on the ground, he was again attacked by Bundy. However, the officer was able to overpower him. He was handcuffed and taken to the police station. Bundy had finally been caught.

Over the months following Bundy’s arrest, investigators were able to compile critical evidence to be used against Bundy in the Leach case. The white van that had been stolen by Bundy was found and they had three eyewitnesses that had seen him driving it the afternoon Kimberly had disappeared. Forensic tests conducted on the van yielded fibers of material that had come from Bundy’s clothes.

Tests also revealed Kimberly Leach’s blood type on the van’s carpet and semen and Ted’s blood type on her underwear. Further evidence was Ted’s shoe impressions in the soil located next to the place Kimberly was found. Police felt confident with the information they had tying Bundy to the Leach case and on July 31, 1978, Ted Bundy was charged with the girl’s murder. Soon after, he would also be charged with the Chi Omega murders. Facing the death penalty, Ted would later plead in his own defense that he was not guilty of the murders.

The Trials

Theodore Robert Bundy faced two murder trials, both spaced within three years. His first trial date was set for June 25, 1979 , in Miami , Florida . The court case centered on the brutal attacks on the Chi Omega sorority sisters. The second trial was to take place in January 1980 in Orlando , Florida , where Ted was to be tried for the murder of Kimberly Leach. Both trials would result in less-than-favorable outcomes for Ted, however it would be the Chi Omega murder case that would seal his fate forever.

Florida v. Theodore Robert Bundy

The opening of the Chi Omega murder trial sparked immense public interest and a media frenzy. After all, Ted had been suspected of at least thirty-six murders in four states and his name elicited nightmarish images to thousands, perhaps even millions around the world. He was considered by many to be evil reincarnate, a monster, the devil and his murders initiated the biggest and most publicized trials of the decade.

During the Chi Omega murder trial, Ted acted as his own defense attorney. He was confident in his abilities and believed he would be given a fair trial. The jury, made up mostly of African-Americans, looked on as he defended himself against the murder charges. It became clear early on in the trial that Ted was fighting a losing battle.

There were two events in the trial that would sway the jury against Ted. The first was Nita Neary’s testimony of what she had seen the night of the murders. While on the stand, she pointed to Ted as the man she had seen fleeing down the stairs and out the door of the Chi Omega House. The second event that swayed the jury during the trial was the testimony of odontologist Dr. Richard Souviron.

While on the stand, Dr. Souviron described the bite mark injuries found on Lisa Levy’s body. As he spoke, the jury was shown full-scale photographs of the bite marks that had been taken the night of the murder. The doctor pointed out the uniqueness of the indentations left behind on the victim and compared them with full-scale pictures of Ted’s teeth. There was no question that Ted had made the bite marks on Lisa Levy’s body. The photos would be the biggest piece of evidence the prosecution had linking Ted to the crime.

On July 23 rd , Ted waited in his cell as the jurors deliberated over his guilt or innocence. After almost seven hours, they returned to the courtroom with a verdict. Showing no emotion, Ted listened as one of the jurors read out “GUILTY.” On all counts of murder, Ted was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the state of Florida , it is customary to have a separate sentencing trial. Ted’s sentencing took place one week later on July 30 th before the same jury that had found him guilty. During the brief hearing, Ted’s mother testified and tearfully pleaded for her son’s life. Ted was also given a chance to address the court and refute the recommendation from the prosecution for the death penalty.

Ted professed his innocence, claiming that the prejudice of the media was responsible for his alleged misrepresentation. He also suggested that the entire proceedings and verdict was nothing short of a farce, which he was unable to accept. According to Larsen, Ted told the hushed courtroom that it was, “absurd to ask for mercy for something he did not do,” yet he would “not share the burden of the guilt.” Judge Cowart, who presided over both trials, handed down his final judgment following Ted’s statement. He affirmed the recommendation and imposed the death penalty twice for the murders of Margaret Bowman and Lisa Levy. The method of execution Ted faced was the electric chair.

The Kimberly Leach Trial

After many delays, the Leach trial began in Orlando , Florida at the Orange County Courthouse on January 7, 1980 . This time Ted decided not to represent himself, instead handing over the responsibility to defense attorneys Julius Africano and Lynn Thompson. Their strategy was to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, a plea that was risky but one of the few available options open to the defense.

The plea of insanity might not have been difficult for the seven women, five-man jury to believe. Unlike the other hearings, Ted became increasingly agitated throughout the trial. At one point he even lost control and stood up yelling at a witness with whom he disagreed. Michaud and Aynesworth stated that Ted was just barely able to control himself, “expending huge amounts of energy just to keep from blowing apart.” It appeared that Ted’s facade of confidence was beginning to fade, probably because he realized that he had already lost the war and this legal battle wouldn’t make much difference in determining his fate.

There was no doubt that the outlook for Ted was bleak. Assistant state attorney Bob Dekle presented sixty-five witnesses that had connected Ted either directly or indirectly with Kimberly Leach on the day of her disappearance. One of the star witnesses had seen a man resembling Ted leading an upset little girl, matching Kimberly’s description, into a white van in front of the girl’s school. However, the defense team argued the legitimacy of the testimony because the man was unable to recall the precise day he had seen the man and little girl.

Nevertheless, Dekle continued to press on and present even more convincing evidence. The most damaging was the fiber evidence, which linked Ted’s clothes and the van he had driven that day with the crime scene. Moreover, fibers matching those from Kimberly Leach’s clothes were found in the van and on Ted’s clothing that he had allegedly worn on the day of the crime. The prosecution’s expert witness, who testified about the fiber analysis, stated that she believed that at some point Ted and Kimberly Leach had been in contact around the time of her death. Michaud and Aynesworth claimed that the testimony had been, “literally fatal” to Ted’s case.

Exactly one month following the opening of the trial, Judge Wallace Jopling asked the jury to deliberate. On February 7 th , after less than seven hours of deliberation the jury returned the verdict, “GUILTY.” The verdict was immediately followed by jubilation from the prosecution team and their supporters.

February 9 th marked the second anniversary of Kimberly Leach’s death. It also was the day that the sentencing trial commenced. During the penalty phase of the trial, Ted shocked those in the courtroom while he interviewed defense witness Carole Ann Boone. During his questioning of Carole, the two caught everyone off guard when they exchanged vows. According to Florida law, the verbal promise made under oath was enough to seal the agreement and the two were considered officially married. Shortly thereafter, the groom was sentenced to death in the electric chair for the third time in under a year. He would spend his honeymoon alone on Death Row in Florida State ‘s Raiford Penitentiary.

Appeals and Confessions

Ted refused to give up and believed that he still had a fighting chance to save his own life. In 1982, he enlisted the help of a new lawyer and appealed the Chi Omega murder trial verdict to the Florida Supreme Court. However, his appeal was eventually denied.

Shortly following the court’s denial of a new hearing, Ted decided to appeal the Kimberly Leach trial verdict. In May 1985, his request was again turned down. However, he continued to keep up the fight and in 1986 he enlisted a new lawyer to assist him in escaping the death penalty.

Ted’s execution date was initially scheduled for March 4, 1986 . However, his execution was postponed while his new defense attorney, Polly Nelson, worked on his appeals for his previous murder convictions. Two months later the appeal was denied and another death warrant was issued to Ted by the State of Florida . Still, the appeal process continued. According to Polly Nelson’s book Defending the Devil, the last appeal was made to the U.S. Supreme Court, who eventually denied Ted’s last stay of execution on January 17, 1989 .

In Ted’s eleventh hour, he decided to confess to more crimes to the Washington State Attorney General’s chief investigator for the criminal division, Dr. Bob Keppel. Ted had temporarily assisted Dr. Keppel in his hunt for the ” Green River killer” from Death Row in the mid 1980’s and he trusted him immensely. Keppel went to meet Ted in an interviewing room at the prison, armed with only a tape recorder. What Keppel learned was shocking.

Dr. Keppel had learned that Ted kept some of his victims’ heads at his home as trophies. However, what was even more surprising was that Ted also engaged in necrophilia with some of the remains of his victims. In fact, Keppel later stated in his book The Riverman: Ted Bundy and I Hunt for the Green River Killer that Ted’s behavior could be best described as “compulsive necrophilia and extreme perversion.”

It was a compulsion that led to the deaths of scores of women, many who remained unknown to investigators. Rule and Keppel stated in their books that Ted was likely responsible for the deaths of at least a hundred women, discounting the official count of thirty-six victims. Whatever the figure, the fact is no one will ever know for certain how many victims actually fell victim to Ted.

Finally on January 24, 1989 , at approximately 7 a.m. in the morning Ted’s memory of his atrocities would be burned away forever by the electric chair’s unforgiving currents. Outside the prison walls stood hundreds of on-lookers and scores of news media representatives awaiting the news of Ted’s death. Following the prison spokesman’s announcement that Ted was officially dead, sounds of cheers came from the jubilant crowd and fireworks lit the sky. Shortly thereafter, a white hearse emerged from the prison gates with the remains of one of the countries most notorious serial killers. As the vehicle moved towards the crematorium, the surrounding crowd cheerfully applauded the end of a living nightmare.

The Murder of Kathy Devine

On December 6, 1973, a young couple stumbled across the remains of a 15-year-old girl in McKenny Park, Washington. Kathy Devine was last seen by friends on November 25th hitchhiking from Seattle to Oregon, trying to run away from home. Shortly after she began her journey, pathologists said she met her death. Kathy Devine had been strangled, sodomized and her throat cut.

Everybody believed that Kathy Devine was one of the many victims of Ted Bundy. It took 28 years and DNA evidence to find the truth.

Jim Carlile of The Olympian reported that Sheriff’s Captain Dan Kimball never closed the files on this old case even though Ted Bundy had been executed and would not tell whatever he knew about the young woman that lost her life in Thurston County in 1973.

Kathy’s clothing was shown on a television news program in Seattle and one of Kathy’s sisters recognized an embroidered patch on the pair of jeans shown as belonging to a murder victim.

At the time of the murder, William E. Cosden Jr. had been living in the area and had been seen at the truck stop where he worked with blood on his clothes. Cosden had been released in 1973 from a mental hospital where he was confined after the 1967 murder of a woman.

Carlile quoted police reports in his article:

“Witnesses saw Cosden come in the night of the murder with stains on his clothing. The witnesses called police.

After leaving the truck stop, Cosden’s truck caught fire and was destroyed three miles from the truck stop.

During initial interviews with police, Cosden denied ever seeing Kathy Devine.”

In 1986, based on additional investigative information, a search warrant was obtained for Cosden’s blood, hair and saliva. At that time, Cosden was in prison for rape.

In 2001, these samples from Cosden were subjected to DNA testing. It was evidence which linked Cosden to Kathy Devine. Cosden, 55, did admit to having sex with Kathy, but denied killing her.

“DNA made the case,” said Sheriff Gary Edward. “This came about as a result of technology and a lot of hard work.”

Cosden is already serving a 48-year sentence for first-degree rape. He is not likely to go free again.

“She was beautiful inside and out, but she was a normal troubled teenager,” Sally Ann Devine said of her daughter. “I don’t think she had more troubles than anyone else her age during that time. It is nice to know that this has finally been solved. We’ve been wondering for 28 years. I still feel like it’s a dream and I’m going to wake up and it’ll all be over.”

CrimeLibrary.com

Ted Bundy: The Poster Boy of Serial Killers

By David Lohr

CrimeMagazine.com

Mention the term “serial killer” and Ted Bundy’s name is frequently the first to pop into mind. Before he was executed in 1989, he admitted to murdering 40 young women in almost a dozen states during his four-year reign of terror in the mid-’70s. In the process he became one of the most feared and prolific serial killers in U.S. history. But what sets Bundy apart is how different he was from the stereotype of the homicidal madman: He was so mainstream that the Washington State Republican Party hired him, so cunning that he twice escaped from jail, so dashing a figure that women sent marriage proposals to him on death row.

What caused Ted Bundy to snap and murder countless young women and girls as young as 12 years old for no apparent reason? The devil is in the details. Many of his early victims bore a physical resemblance to Bundy’s first girlfriend, who was tall and slender and wore her long brown hair with a part in the middle.

Bundy was born Theodore Robert Cowell on November 24, 1946, in Burlington, Vermont. Bundy’s mother, Eleanor Louise Cowell, was unmarried and just 22-years-old at the time of his birth. Bundy’s father, Lloyd Marshall, apparently wanted nothing to do with him, so he and his mother moved to Philadelphia to live with her parents. In an unusual twist, Eleanor’s parents, out of fear that their daughter would be criticized for having a bastard child, raised Bundy as their own son, leaving him to believe that his mother was his older sister.

In 1950, Eleanor and Bundy moved to Tacoma, Wash., to live with relatives. Once there, Eleanor legally changed their names. Ted Cowell became Theodore Robert Nelson, and Eleanor became Louise Cowell. A year after their move, Eleanor married a military cook by the name of Johnnie Culpepper Bundy. From then on Ted Cowell became known as Ted Bundy.

As time went by Louise and Johnnie had four other children of their own, whom Bundy spent much of his time looking after. Ted never seemed to form a bond with his stepfather. He had his own ideas of how things should have been and considered himself a Cowell rather than a Bundy. In the book The Only Living Witness, by Stephen G. Michaud, Bundy’s adolescent years are described as unhappy ones. As a child, Bundy was shy and often teased by bullies.

Bundy graduated from Woodrow Wilson High School in 1965, and by way of a scholarship began attending the University of Puget Sound. He took courses in psychology and Asian studies, but after attending just two semesters, he transferred to the University of Washington in Seattle.

In 1967, Bundy met a beautiful young woman named Stephanie Brooks. The two hit it off quickly and Bundy was soon head over heals in love. It was the first time in his life that he ever felt close to a woman and also, according to the book The Stranger Beside Me by Ann Rule, the first time he engaged in any form of sexual activity. During the fall of 1968, Bundy once again transferred, enrolling in Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. Shortly thereafter, Stephanie graduated from the University of Washington and abruptly ended their relationship. She later explained that she felt like Bundy had no real direction or future goals and that she had not been not ready to commit. Bundy was devastated at loosing his first love and was unable to concentrate on anything. Eventually his grades suffered so badly that he decided to drop out of college.

As Bundy tried to get his life back on track, he began traveling around the country. He eventually decided to visit his birth town in Vermont, where he was dealt yet another damaging blow while looking up the record of his birth: He discovered that his sister was actually his mother, and the woman who had raised him as her son was actually his grandmother.

During the fall of 1969, Bundy re-entered the University of Washington and excelled in all of his classes. He was a man on a mission, hoping to win Stephanie back. Nonetheless, she still had no interest in rekindling their previous romance. Undaunted, Bundy worked harder and became increasingly involved in local politics, working on and off for various campaigns. In his spare time he worked the phones at the Seattle Crisis Clinic, where he soon met and befriended Ann Rule, the woman who years later would write of Bundy’s life and crimes in her best-selling book, The Stranger Beside Me. It was also during this time that Bundy met Meg Anders, a divorcee who worked as a secretary. The two began dating and Meg was soon deeply in love. Bundy treated her well and took on the role of a father figure for her young daughter. Regardless, Bundy was not yet ready to settle down and unbeknownst to her continued to keep in contact with Stephanie through letters and phone calls.

Bundy spent the next two years working on political campaigns and applying to various law schools. At one point during this time he was commended by the Seattle Police as a “hero” for saving the life of a 3-year-old boy whom he rescued from drowning. With his life on track and his future looking up, Bundy graduated from the University of Washington in the summer of 1973, and was quickly accepted into the University of Utah Law School. However, whether it was because of his ongoing relationship with Meg, or his job with the Washington State Republican Party, he chose not to attend until the following school year.

During one of Bundy’s business trips for the Republican Party, he decided to meet up with Stephanie, to reminisce about old times. The new Bundy profoundly impressed Stephanie and sparks began to fly once again. The two began spending as much time together as possible and even talked of marriage. Meg had no idea Bundy was secretly meeting Stephanie, all the while he continued to profess his love to her. Stephanie felt that Bundy was now the man of her dreams and began looking forward to their future together. While neither woman knew about the other, they were also unaware of the transformation Bundy was undergoing. For unknown reasons, he began focusing his energy into a murderous downward spiral, which began just three days after New Years. Each victim was methodically chosen and each evoked Stephanie’s slender build and hairstyle.

On January 4, 1974, 18-year-old Joni Lentz became Bundy’s first victim. Joni shared a large house in Seattle with several roommates. No one suspected anything was wrong when she failed to come down for breakfast. As the day drew on, her friends grew concerned and decided to check on her. Joni appeared to be asleep when her roommates walked in, but upon closer inspection they were horrified when they noticed that she was lying in a pool of blood. When they pulled back the covers, the seriousness of the situation was amplified to that of pure terror – a bed rod had been broken off and rammed deep into her vagina. Joni appeared to still be breathing, so her roommates quickly called paramedics and local police. Joni was in a comatose state when the EMT’s arrived, but she had amazingly survived the attack.

Bundy’s next known victim was Lynda Ann Healy, a 21-year-old weather forecaster and law student at Seattle’s University of Washington Law School. On Jan. 31, 1974, one of Lynda’s roommates received a call from Lynda’s boss saying Lynda had not shown up for work. The roommate went into Lynda’s basement bedroom and saw that her bed was made and her bicycle was sitting in the corner. As day turned to night and no one heard from her, her worried parents called the police and asked them to look into their daughter’s disappearance. As part of their investigation the police performed a routine search of Lynda’s room. When one of the officers decided to pull back her bedcovers, he was shocked to discover that the pillowcase and sheets were soaked in blood. Another officer soon found Lynda’s nightgown, the neckline of which was crusted with dried blood. The investigators were unable to find any evidence pointing to a suspect. As local law enforcement kept busy searching for Lynda, Bundy kept busy going about his everyday life with little concern that he would be discovered.

In February 1974, without warning, and for no apparent reason, Bundy dumped Stephanie Brooks, just as she had him years earlier. Stephanie never saw or heard from Bundy again.

Over the course of the next few months, seven more women mysteriously vanished within the states of Utah, Oregon, and Washington. Each case was remarkably similar: each of the victim’s was a slender Caucasian female, wore her hair parted in the middle, and had disappeared in the evening hours. As the investigation of the disappearances intensified, investigators learned from several witnesses that a handsome man, driving a VW bug, and wearing a cast on either his arm or leg, had been seen during many of the incidents. Several women who had been approached by him recalled him mentioning his name was Ted.

No one knew what happened to the girls until two bodies were found in Washington in August of 1974, just four miles from Lake Sammamish. It appeared to investigators that the victims, Denise Naslund and Janice Ott, had been murdered during a crazed sexual frenzy. There was little evidence at the scene, but the similarities between the Washington and Oregon murders quickly caught the attention of investigators in Utah. The three states began working together and soon agreed that one man was committing the crimes.

Investigators got their first break on Nov. 8, 1974, when a man driving a VW bug attempted to kidnap 18-year-old Carol DaRonch from a mall in Salt Lake City. The young woman managed to escape and was able to give investigators a description of the man and his vehicle. As investigators in Salt Lake City looked for their suspect, authorities in Bountiful, Utah, were notified that a 17-year-old girl, Debby Kent, had disappeared from Viewmont High School. A witness later reported seeing a tan Volkswagen bug speed away from the high school parking lot.

The killings stopped for four months before resuming in Colorado where at least four women mysteriously vanished. Almost a month later, one of those missing women was found just miles from where she had disappeared. Following an autopsy, it was discovered that she had been sexually assaulted and murdered with a blunt instrument. Back In Washington, the Taylor Mountains were becoming well known as the burial site for the killer, as the mountain slowly revealed the remains of several women, one of which was later identified as 21-year-old Lynda Ann Healy.

On Aug. 16, 1975, investigators finally got the break they were hoping for when a highway patrolman in Granger, Utah, noticed an unfamiliar man in a VW bug. When the officer turned on his spotlight to look at the plate, the driver sped away. A chase ensued, but after just a few blocks the VW pulled off to the side of the road. When the officer asked the driver for identification, he was given a driver’s license with the name Theodore Robert Bundy. Suspecting the man was up to no good, the officer searched the vehicle, discovering a pair of handcuffs, a length of rope, a crowbar, a ski mask, an ice pick, and a nylon stocking. Bundy was placed under arrest for suspicion of burglary.

It did not take long for investigators to notice the physical similarities between Bundy and the suspect wanted in the attempted kidnapping of Carol DaRonch. However, they knew that they would need more evidence to support their suspicions. Shortly after Bundy’s arrest, Carol DaRonch and several other witnesses were able to pick Bundy out of a police line up. Although he denied having any knowledge of the attempted kidnapping or murders, police were convinced they had their man and launched an extensive investigation into his background.

Over the course of the next several weeks, several witnesses from Lake Sammamish Park came forward and identified Bundy as the man named Ted that they had seen walking around the area in an arm or leg cast. During a subsequent search of Bundy’s apartment, investigators discovered plaster of Paris, a substance used in the making of casts. It was also learned that Bundy was very familiar with the Taylor Mountains, where several bodies of victims had been found and that he had used his credit card to purchase gas in the towns where some of the victims had initially disappeared. The evidence against Bundy was mounting up, but he continued to claim his innocence.

As Bundy went to trial on February 23, 1976, for the attempted kidnapping of Carol DaRonch, investigators scrambled to link him to the murders. According to the book The Stranger Beside Me by Ann Rule, the 29-year-old Bundy, always the polite and handsome charmer, made a great impression on the Utah courtroom. He was confident, unnerved, and apparently highly offended by the charges against him. While he denied ever meeting DaRonch, he was unable to provide a solid alibi of his whereabouts the day of the attack. Even though Bundy was confident he would beat the charges, the judge found him guilty of aggravated kidnapping, sentencing him to one to 15 years in prison.

On Oct. 22, 1976, Colorado police charged Bundy with the murder of 23-year-old Caryn Campbell. Her raped and battered body had been found on Feb. 17, 1975, and investigators felt they had sufficient evidence to link him to the crime. During April of 1977, Bundy was extradited to Colorado and placed in the Garfield County Jail in Colorado, to await trial for Campbell’s murder, which was scheduled for Nov. 14, 1977. Faced with prison time already, Bundy had no desire to sit through another trial and began planning his escape. Having been given special privileges to use the Pitkin County Courthouse library in Aspen, Bundy waited until no one was looking and jumped out a second story window on June 7, 1977. He was recaptured eight days later while trying to leave town in a stolen car.

Almost seven months later, on December 30, 1977, Bundy would escape again. In the intervening months he had eaten very little food and had shed 30 pounds, enough to allow him to shimmy through a small light fixture hole in the ceiling of his cell at the Garfield County Jail. Once inside the ceiling, Bundy made his way through a crawl space and into the closet of his jailer’s apartment. He waited until all was quiet and then casually walked out the front door. It took jailers nearly 15 hours to realize he was gone. After making his way to Chicago, Bundy boarded a plane for Florida. Investigators were stumped and had no idea where he had gone.

By January of 1978, Bundy had acquired an apartment near Florida State University. He supported himself by committing petty thefts. He went by the alias Chris Hagen, and grew a beard in order to change his appearance. According to the book The Only Living Witness by Stephen G. Michaud, Bundy was not content with his newfound freedom and was unable to control his murderous impulses. On the night of Saturday Jan. 14, 1978, he entered the Chi Omega House and attacked four sleeping coeds one at a time by sneaking into each victim’s room and knocking the victim unconscious. Two of the young women suffered such severe injuries that they died as a result, while the other two survived the brutal attack. The pathologist who performed the autopsies discovered that one of the coeds had been beaten with a club, raped, and strangled. He also discovered bite marks on her buttocks and nipples. In addition, she had been sexually assaulted with a metal hair spray can. The autopsy on the other victim showed that she had also been beaten with a club and strangled.

Bundy waited less than a month before striking again. On Feb. 9, 12-year-old Kimberly Leach was reported missing by her parents. Even though police were quick to launch an extensive search, they were unable to locate her.

Just six days after Kimberly’s disappearance, a Pensacola police officer, patrolling a residential area, noticed a man who seemed to be casing the neighborhood in an orange VW bug. The officer ran a routine check on the plates and discovered that the plates had been stolen. The officer quickly turned on his lights and moved in. The suspect sped away but after a brief chase, pulled off to the side of the road. The officer ordered the driver out of the car and instructed him to lie down on the ground. As the officer attempted to apply handcuffs, a brief scuffle ensued and the suspect attempted to run off. The officer fired one shot at the suspect and the suspect fell to the ground. As the officer approached, the suspect jumped up and attacked him. Another brief scuffle took place, but this time the officer was able to subdue the man and handcuff him.

Once the Pensacola police were able to identify the suspect as Theodore Robert Bundy, Florida investigators immediately ordered impressions of his teeth, to compare with bite marks on one of the Chi Omega victims. The match was indisputable and would seal Bundy’s fate once and for all.

On July 23, 1980, Bundy was convicted on two counts of murder and sentenced to die in Florida’s electric chair. Subsequently, a third conviction and death sentence was also obtained in the case of 12-year-old Kimberly Leach, whose body had been discovered just weeks after his arrest.

Following Bundy’s arrest, authorities in Seattle were convinced that Bundy’s first victim was 15-year-old Kathy Devine, who had disappeared on November 25, 1973, and whose mutilated corpse was found less than a month later. While Bundy freely confessed to every murder prior to his death, he always maintained his innocence in that particular case. Regardless, authorities labeled the girl a “Bundy victim” and gave it little more thought. However, on March 8, 2002, a man named William E. Cosden, Jr., 55, was arrested for the murder after DNA evidence, which had been preserved from Devine’s body, linked him to her murder. Cosden has subsequently been tried and found guilty of the crime.

After nearly 10 years of appeals, Bundy was executed on Jan. 24, 1989. During his final interview, he confessed to a total of 40 murders. One of Bundy’s most famous quotes regarding his crimes can be found in Dr. James Dobson’s book, Life on the Edge: “We serial killers are your sons, we are your husbands, we are everywhere. And there will be more of your children dead tomorrow.”

Following Bundy’s execution, in an unusual twist, his remains were cremated at the request of his family and spread over the mountains in Washington State, where the bodies of several of his victims had been discovered.

Additional Reading:

The Only Living Witness, by Stephen G. Michaud.
The Stranger Beside Me, by Ann Rule.
Life on the Edge, by Dr. James Dobson.

- Murderpedia


A DAY’S WORK

$
0
0

Christopher Barling has been working with the Los Angeles police department’s homicide division since 1993. He’s now the homicide supervisor for the 77th division in south LA, which has historically had one of the highest murder rates in the city.

What’s a typical day like for you?

First of all, there is never a typical workday for a homicide detective. I work what’s called a 9/17 shift, which means that I work nine-hour days, nine out of 10 weekdays, with weekends off. However, since I am the homicide supervisor, I am always on call.

I usually start my day between 6-7am, depending on the LA traffic. First thing I do is meet with the members of my squad, as they get their morning cups of coffee. I then transition the conversation into getting updates on their current investigations and their investigative plans to solve their cases.

Next, based on the teams of detectives’ availability, I determine who is going to be on call with me during the week (they get to pre-schedule what weekend they have in advance). I then usually do a series of administrative functions: completing time sheets, signing overtime slips, reviewing search warrants, court orders, etc. But that’s only the case if we didn’t have a homicide overnight.

When a murder occurs it is rarely during business hours; it is usually between 10pm and 3am. So, on those days, my watch officially starts when I arrive at the crime scene. I then assess if more detectives need to be called in to start early and start handing out tasks to be completed. Some of tasks can be locating and interviewing witnesses, re-canvassing the crime scene for additional witnesses or evidence, locating and downloading surveillance footage, booking evidence, searching through criminal data bases, and meeting with other law enforcement officers, who have expertise in the area where the crime occurred.

I oversee all of this and monitor the investigative team who is assigned the case and the teams that are assisting them. I also meet with the area captain and the bureau chief and update them on the status of the case to help assist them in the assignment of uniformed officers in the area for future crime prevention and apprehension. I also meet with gang intervention personnel and discuss the potential of retaliation because a high number of the murders in 77th division have some relationship to street gangs. The victims are not always gang members but the suspects usually are. All of this tends to make for long days and end of watch is rarely what it is scheduled to be.

What makes for a really good day on the job?

I am fortunate that every day is a good day on the job. I have the privilege of working with and supervising arguably the best detectives in the world. What makes a special day, is watching the detectives put together their cases and solving them. It is satisfying to watch a team of detectives getting excited that they just got their suspect identified or have a enough evidence to file a case against a murderer. If I am to use an old cliché, as homicide detectives we get to speak for the dead. It is exciting to watch a detective interviewing a suspect, and getting that suspect to make admissions or confess to a murder. It is also rewarding to hear one of the detectives get the call from the district attorney that a jury just convicted a suspect who is responsible for a murder. These days are special because we can then explain to a family that we know who is responsible for killing their loved one.

How long have you been a homicide detective? What’s changed over that time?

I began working as a homicide detective in 1993, and technology is the biggest change over that time. When I first started working cases, we didn’t have computers. We use to handwrite all reports and then typed them on a typewriter. Now everything is done on a computer. In 1993, we just had blood typing that was used to help identity people to a crime scene. Now DNA is used, which can identify an individual using his DNA to one in a billion, quadrillion or greater. There was no social media or surveillance cameras. The technology of today has greatly helped detectives build circumstantial evidence in their cases. We now also pass information out on Twitter on @LAPD-CGHD, @LAMurderCop and @77thHomicideCop.

Please remember, real detective work is not what you see on television shows like Law and Order, CSI and Dexter. We usually don’t solve a case in an hour, or find scientific evidence everywhere.

What are the most difficult aspects of your job?

Over the past 10 years, 77th division has had 549 murders and there are approximately 250 open cases which are still not solved. Homicide detectives tend to be some of the most committed officers in any police agency and never want to go home without solving their case. But truth be told, we can’t solve a case without the community’s help and not every homicide case gets solved. However, just because it isn’t solved does not mean that it is not being worked. Every year detectives solve anywhere between 60-70% of the cases, but only about 30-40% are from that calendar year. The rest of cases, which make up the difference, are from the previous years’ cases.

Tell us about a case that had a big impact on you in the last few years:

All of the cases that you work or respond to affect you in some way or another but recently in 2010, there were two cases that stood out.

They were the senseless murders of Aaron Shannon Jr and Kashmier James. Aaron was a five-year-old boy, who was shot to death on Hallowe’en night in his grandfather’s backyard while wearing his Hallowe’en costume (a Spiderman suit). Kashmier was a 25-year-old mother, who was standing near her car on Christmas night with her three-year-old daughter seated inside, when the suspect, who was standing down the street shot and killed her. In both of these cases, neither victim nor their families had anything to do with gangs.

Thankfully, the detectives who were assigned to both of these cases have arrested the suspects who were responsible for the murders. Both of the cases affect me in a couple of ways. One is just to be grateful of every moment I spend with people and my loved ones, because life can end so short and tragic, no matter what your age is or what day it is. Secondly, I watched both of these families handle their tragedies with such dignity, grace and strength that it inspires me daily to try and be a better person. Lastly, I had tremendous pride in watching the assigned detectives and their peers work relentlessly together as a cohesive team to solve both of the cases – The Guardian



SERIAL KILLER PETER DUPAS GETS LIFE

$
0
0

August 27, 2007

- Detectives who worked on the homicide case of Mersina Halvagis have praised today’s sentencing of serial killer Peter Dupas as “a proper sentence”.

Dupas was today sentenced to a life sentence with no minimum term for the 25-year-old’s stabbing murder at Fawkner Cemetery 10 years ago.

Speaking outside the Supreme Court after Justice Philip Cummins handed down his sentence, homicide squad Detective Senior Sergeant Jeff Maher said police was pleased with the outcome.

“I’m very pleased for the Halvagis family, they have gone through a lot over the last decade and it’s good to have a conclusion,” Detective Maher said.
“The sentence handed down by the judge reflected community expectations.”

Detective Maher also paid tribute to his fellow police investigators for the Dupas conviction.

“Greg Hough and Paul Scarlett worked very hard on the investigation and … the proof was seen today, with a right and proper sentence.”

Dupas, 54, was found guilty of Ms Halvagis’ murder earlier this month after a 22-day trial that included testimony from a woman who said she had seen him at Fawkner Cemetery on the day Ms Halvagis was murdered.
Dupas pleaded not guilty to the murder.

Dubbed Victoria’s worst serial sex killer, Dupas is already serving a double life sentence with no minimum term for the murders of Nicole Patterson in 1999 and Margaret Maher in 1997, and remains the prime suspect in the murders of three other women.

‘You are a psychopath’

Today’s sentencing ends a decade-long police investigation and family campaign for justice after Ms Halvagis, 25, was found murdered near her grandmother’s grave by her fiance on November 2, 1997.

In sentencing Dupas, Justice Cummins called for changes to the sentencing act to give more weight to the rights of victims of crime.
He described the trial as a “vindication of the rights of Ms Halvagis” and of all victims of crime.

Justice Cummins noted that Dupas had no remorse for his crime and no prospect of rehabilitation.

“You do not suffer from any mental illness,” he said.
“Rather, you are a psychopath driven by a hatred of women.
“For the murder of Mersina Halvagis I sentence you to life imprisonment. I refuse to set any minimum term. Life means life.”

Justice Cummins said Ms Halvagis actions on the day of her murder were typical of her devotion, goodness and consideration for others.

Addressing Dupas, he said: “Your presence at the cemetery was typical of your evil: cunning, predatory and homicidal.”

“You’re a strong man with strong arms and hands. Ms Halvagis was but 45 kilograms in weight and 150 centimetres in height.

He described the attack as “swift, savage and brutal”.

Dupas inflicted 33 stab wounds on his victim, breaking Ms Halvagis’ bones, passing through her lungs, penetrating her neck and cutting through her heart.

But Justice Cummins said Dupas’ cunning had brought him undone.

During the trial, witness Andrew Fraser, who had shared a cell with Dupas at Port Phillip Prison, showed the court a re-enactment of how he said Dupas silently “pantomimed” the stabbing of Ms Halvagis.

On other occasions, Dupas allegedly told Mr Fraser he left “no forensics” at Fawkner.

“You left no forensics at Fawkner – words which would come back to haunt you.”

Killer showed little reaction

During sentencing Dupas showed little reaction, apart from the occasional grimace and when star witness Andrew Fraser’s name was mentioned he appeared to roll his eyes towards the ceiling.

At the end of sentencing he rose, adjusted his jacket and was led from the court

A TV camera was allowed into the court today to film the sentencing.

Justice Philip Cummins allowed a single camera into the court, with the footage to be distributed to online and TV outlets.

The first televised sentence occurred in 1995 when Nathan John Avent was sentenced for the murder of a 10-year-old boy with a tomahawk.

Outside court, homicide detective Senior Sergeant Jeff Maher said he was pleased with today’s sentence.

“The sentence and the sentencing reflected community expectations,” he said.

While Dupas is also the prime suspect in the murders of three other women – Helen McMahon, Renita Brunton and Kathleen Downes – today’s sentencing may bring some closure for the Halvagis family.

Ms Halvagis’ father George has spent the past decade fronting a very public campaign for information about his daughter’s killer.

Earlier this month, Ms Halvagis’ brother Nick said he was relieved at the guilty verdict handed to Dupas but said the family felt her absence every day.

“You might be going to work and you hear a song that has no relevance to your sister, but you (think of her),” he said.

“Her death was a very small part of her existence. We are going to do our best to remember those 25 years.” – Dan Harrison with Reko Rennie & Peter Gregory


GERALD EUGENE STANO

$
0
0

Classification: Serial killer
Characteristics: Rape
Number of victims: 9 – 41 +
Date of murders: 1969 – 1980
Date of arrest: April 1, 1980
Date of birth: September 12, 1951
Victims profile: Women (prostitutes, hitch-hikers, runaways)
Method of murder: Stabbing with knife – Choking
Location: Florida/Pennsylvania/New Jersey, USA
Status: Executed by electrocution in Florida on March 23, 1998

APPENDIX A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Gerald Eugene Stano, Petitioner,

v.
Thomas L. Barton, Superintendent, Florida State Prison; Harry K. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondents.

Case No. 87-753-CIV-ORL-19
ORDER

An evidentiary hearing was held in this case from January 22, 1992 through January 31, 1992 and from March 5, 1992 through March 9, 1992, pursuant to the remand from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Stano v. Dugger, 901 F.2d 898 (11th Cir.1990). Upon consideration of the evidence and the law, the Court enters its findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows:

I. BRADY CLAIM
A. FINDINGS OF FACT ON CLAIM OF COLLUSION AND COERCION

(1) STANO’S CONFESSION TO THE MURDER OF MARY CAROL MAHER ON APRIL 1, 1980

James William Gadberry, Jr., now a patrolman with the Daytona Beach Police Department, testified that on April 1, 1980, he “broke” the Maher case by developing the lead that solved it. Gadberry had just arrested Gerald Eugene Stano (“Stano”) on that date for the aggravated battery of Donna Hensley in Daytona Beach, Florida.

Stano had been brought to the Daytona Beach Police Department for questioning by Gadberry, who was then a detective, and Detective Richard Zachary. During the course of this questioning, Gadberry determined that the wounds inflicted on Donna Hensley were similar to the wounds on the body of a homicide victim under investigation by his department, Mary Carol Maher.

Gadberry left Stano in the interview room and went into the office of Captain Marvin Eugene Powers where he announced with enthusiasm that he had solved the murder of Mary Carol Maher. Gadberry stated “We’ve got the guy responsible for the Maher murder,” or words to like effect and also announced that the murderer was then in their interview room. This questioning of Stano by Gadberry occurred before any interview of Stano by Sgt. Paul B. Crow of the Daytona Beach Police Department.

Since Sgt. Crow was in charge of the Maher murder investigation, Captain Powers directed Crow to join Gadberry in the interview room to further question the suspect. Gadberry excitedly advised Crow that the wounds in the Hensley case and the Maher case were similar, particularly in the thigh areas, and that he, Gadberry, had solved the Maher case. Crow joined Gadberry in the interview room where Stano was questioned by both police officers.

During the course of this interview, Crow showed Stano a color studio photograph of two Maher sisters who were similar in appearance, and Stano immediately pointed to Mary Carol Maher as his victim. When Stano was asked to describe Mary Carol Maher, he stood up to give her height and weight by gesture and described her as being tall and athletic. Stano’s description of the victim was accurate. On further questioning, Stano gave a correct description of the clothes Mary Carol Maher had been wearing. When Crow said Maher was wearing slacks and a shirt, Stano corrected him and identified her as wearing a white shirt with animal designs and jeans.

Stano also described how he murdered Maher, including stabbing her in the chest, thigh and back. His description of the wounds matched the autopsy report except that stab wounds in the back had not been included in the medical report on Ms. Maher. Stano stated that he had stabbed the victim in the chest as hard as he could. The autopsy reflected that her sternum had been broken. Stano further described the road which he traveled with her body, how he wrapped her in a foam padding or ticking, and how he left the body in an area near the airport, placing palm branches over it.

During this interview, Crow did not suggest to Stano what clothes the victim was wearing or her wounds or how the body appeared when it was located. Neither officer showed Stano police reports, the autopsy report, or any photographs except the one of the two sisters referenced earlier. ( See transcript and recording of confession, Petitioner’s 4 and 149.)

During this questioning of Stano, Gadberry walked in and out of the interview room. Captain Powers testified that Gadberry came out of the interview room several times and advised him that Stano was guilty of the Maher murder. The interview of Stano on this date lasted approximately one and one-half hours.

Captain Powers then directed Crow and Gadberry to have Stano take them to the scene where Stano claimed to have left the body to see if Stano could corroborate his confession. The three men traveled in a marked police car with Officers Willie Azma and Grady Jackson following in a separate vehicle.

While the testimony is in conflict as to what occurred on the trip to the scene, the Court finds that Sgt. Crow did not show Stano the way to the place where Mary Carol Maher’s body had been found. Stano directed Crow, who was driving the vehicle, to make the appropriate turns, and after he had directed Crow to a place where three roads diverged in an area which was approximately fifty percent a dump site, Stano picked the least traveled of the three roads to follow.

The men got out of the two vehicles in which they were travelling, and Stano directed them on foot some distance from the cars to the exact location where the body had been found. Stano cried as he pointed to the place where he had left Mary Carol Maher’s body and described how he had placed branches over her body before leaving.

On their return from the trip to the site where Maher’s body had been found, Gadberry advised Sgt. Marvin J. White of the Daytona Beach Police Department that he had solved the Maher case, and the officers who had gone to the scene also reported to Captain Powers that Stano had led them right to the place where the body had been found and had cried. Gadberry did not state any concern about the confession or the trip to the scene of the crime at the time of these events.

Sgt. White testified that it was not until 1985 or 1986 when Gadberry returned to the Daytona Beach Police Department after quitting to become a church director of youth ministries that Gadberry stated he felt Stano was not guilty of anything and that Crow had “made it all up.” When Captain Powers learned of these statements by Gadberry, he conducted his own investigation and concluded that Gadberry was incorrect.

While Gadberry testified that he told Captain Powers on April 1, 1980 that Stano only confirmed what Crow showed him, Crow and Gadberry filed reports after the April 1, 1980 interview of Stano (Petitioner’s 154 and 155), and Gadberry signed a transcript of Stano’s confession made on April 1, 1980 (Petitioner’s 4).

In Gadberry’s police report made in April of 1980, he noted that Stano knew details of Maher’s murder which had not been made public and that Stano had directed the officers to the place where the Maher body had been found.

While Gadberry testified before this Court that Crow pointed out things to Stano during this trip to the crime scene and that Stano merely agreed with Crow, Gadberry could not recall crucial information concerning the trip such as when they went to the crime scene, who was driving, whether Stano cried after pointing out the place where the body had been left and whether Stano mentioned anything about foam-backed ticking.

There was evidence that during this trip to the crime scene, Gadberry attempted to engage Stano in repeated conversations and failed to observe the route that Stano was directing as well as the facts concerning the crime and its scene which Stano was providing. Gadberry’s testimony before this Court is contrary to his police reports prepared in April of 1980 at the time of these events (Respondent’s 4).

Further, Stano himself later wrote Kathy Kelly “Before being taken to jail, I took Paul to where I put a body behind the airport.” (Respondent’s 19-D).

In the days following Stano’s initial statement on April 1, 1980, Sgt. Crow undertook further investigation. He had a second autopsy of Mary Carol Maher performed. He and the medical coroner went to the funeral home where the coroner examined the body and found for the first time the two stab wounds in the back of Mary Carol Maher which Stano had described and which the medical examiner had missed in his first autopsy and medical report.

Crow asked Detective Lewis to check with jurisdictions south of Daytona Beach to see if the body of a woman had been located along I-4 or I-95. Lewis investigated and reported to Crow that no evidence on this alleged murder victim had been obtained.

As the result of the confession of Stano on April 1, 1980, Crow did a complete records check of the Daytona Beach boardwalk area for missing persons, homicides, and any crimes involving the name Stano. Crow came up with several incident reports, and from these reports prepared a chart compiling this information.

From this information Crow learned that several women had accused Stano of assault and battery after picking them up at the boardwalk area. Crow compiled reports of crimes or missing persons concerning the following women: Ramona Neal, Debra Jackson, Donna Hensley, Mary Carol Maher, Hazel Allen and Patricia Courtney.

Crow then contacted Dave Hudson of the Volusia County Sheriff’s Department for the names of other possible crime victims. From Hudson he obtained information concerning homicide victims, including Ms. Nancy Heard, whose body had been found three miles north of the Holiday Inn boardwalk, and Ms. Linda Hamilton, who had been reported missing from the boardwalk area and found on the beach in New Smyrna.

In addition, on April 1, 1980, Crow called Stano’s mother and father who went to the Daytona Beach Police Department. Crow advised them that Stano had confessed to murder and asked for their input on his background and personality, which they provided.

Crow further researched Stano’s background and found that in other jurisdictions of Florida as well as in Pennsylvania and New Jersey there were homicides involving a similar modus operandi to that of the homicide of Mary Carol Maher with such things as branches covering the female victims when their bodies were found. Crow also sent Stano’s car to the crime lab for examination and visited Stano’s room, but found no viable evidence.

(2) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CROW, JACOBSON AND McMILLAN

Meanwhile on April 1, 1980, Stano called Don Jacobson from the jail and made a confession to him. Jacobson, an experienced criminal defense attorney who has handled several capital cases and who had previously represented Stano, called Stano’s parents to advise them that he would like to represent Stano. Mr. and Mrs. Stano initially retained Jacobson. Then a few days later, they terminated this relationship and instead hired Michael Lambert to represent their son. When they were unable to pay Lambert’s fee, they begged Jacobson to take the defense of Petitioner Stano again.

Jacobson entered an initial notice of appearance on April 9, 1980 to defend Stano against the charge of the murder of Mary Carol Maher. Because Michael Lambert was the attorney of record, Jacobson entered a second appearance on behalf of Stano on May 9, 1980. He was officially appointed as one of Stano’s attorneys on May 15, 1980.

Jacobson interviewed Stano several times, during which Stano confessed to the six murders in Volusia County which eventually became the basis for entry of a plea of guilty on September 2, 1981 described below. Stano confessed to Jacobson that he had committed other murders as well.

Jacobson obtained court orders to hire a private investigator, Warren Walker, to go to the cities or areas where Stano said he had murdered people or left bodies in order to determine if Stano’s confessions were “real”; in other words, Jacobson wanted to determine if Stano had truly committed these murders or was falsely confessing. (Petitioner’s 117, 118, 121 and 122).

Jacobson also obtained authorization to hire Ann McMillan, a psychologist, to obtain background information and to perform psychological tests on Stano. ( See Petitioner’s 116, 119). From the information he gathered through his own investigation, Jacobson determined to his satisfaction that Stano had in fact committed the murders which he confessed to committing to his attorney. Jacobson testified that before he allowed Stano to enter a plea of guilty incident to the six Volusia County murders, he had ruled out the factual innocence of Stano through Jacobson’s own, independent investigation.

Until Don Jacobson as Stano’s attorney and Larry Nixon as the prosecuting attorney in the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit entered an agreement which would allow Stano to plead guilty and receive a sentence of life imprisonment for any murder he committed of a victim whose body was located in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Jacobson described his relationship with Paul Crow as one of adversaries. Although Crow and Jacobson had known each other professionally since 1966, they were not personal friends and had associated with each other only in the context of their work within their respective professions.

Jacobson testified that he and Crow not only did not work together, but also that they were “enemies” until Jacobson and Nixon entered a deal to spare the life of Jacobson’s client, Stano, as to the murder victims located within the Seventh Judicial Circuit. Until then, Jacobson did not tell Crow what Stano had confessed to Jacobson. Instead Jacobson would talk to Crow or have Warren Walker, his investigator, talk to Crow to try to find out how much Crow had learned concerning the various murders that Stano already had confessed to committing to Jacobson.

Crow testified that he told Don Jacobson and Warren Walker from time to time in response to their inquiries the information that Crow was learning about Stano but that he never asked Jacobson or Walker for details and never requested that they ask Stano for details.

During the course of his investigation of Stano, Crow told Jacobson that he did not think Stano had killed just one or two persons. Jacobson would respond to Crow, “Prove it.” or “Show me.” Jacobson did not indicate agreement with Crow or acquiescence in what Crow said. Jacobson did not give Crow any indication that Jacobson viewed Stano as a multiple or serial killer.

In April or May of 1980, Jacobson began making contact with Larry Nixon, the prosecuting attorney, in an effort to obtain a plea agreement which would spare his client’s life. Sometime around May of 1980, he approached Nixon and advised Nixon that he had “interesting information” but that he would want something in exchange for it.

In Jacobson’s professional opinion, Nixon had a strong case against Stano in the Maher and Vann Haddocks murders, and he felt that the death penalty for Stano was likely. Jacobson testified that in Stano’s confessions to him, Stano knew facts only the killer of these women would know.

Stano from the very outset had urged Jacobson to obtain for him a plea agreement that would spare his life because he feared the death penalty. Stano as well as his parents had expressed their desire on several occasions for Jacobson to try to negotiate a plea agreement on behalf of Stano.

Because Jacobson knew that Stano was involved in more than one murder, he continued to pursue the concept of a plea agreement with Larry Nixon, and a deal was struck in May of 1980 in which Nixon agreed to give use immunity to Stano as to any murders to which Stano confessed prior to entry of a plea of guilty and if the bodies of the victims were found in the Seventh Judicial Circuit. Jacobson and Nixon both testified that this agreement meant Stano would not receive the death penalty for any murder of victims whose bodies were found in the Seventh Judicial Circuit to which he confessed prior to entry of his guilty plea before Judge Foxman.

The agreement between Nixon and Jacobson pertaining to this plea of guilty and sentence was limited to the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Nixon’s jurisdiction. Jacobson made clear to Stano on several occasions, and he testified that Stano understood, that if a body had not been left within the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Stano was not to talk about it to the authorities.

Jacobson instructed Stano not to talk to anyone about the bodies of Stano’s victims which were located outside the Seventh Judicial Circuit, and particularly since Stano had confessed by this time to Jacobson to the Scharf murder in Brevard County as well as to other murders outside the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Jacobson advised Stano that these other murders were outside the agreement that he had made on behalf of Stano with Mr. Nixon and were therefore “taboo”, not to be mentioned or discussed by Stano with anyone.

Jacobson explained use immunity to Stano in May of 1980 and reiterated to him in several subsequent conversations that he should not discuss any murder in which the body of the victim was found outside the jurisdiction of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, including but not limited to the murder of Cathy Lee Scharf, because it was not covered by the plea agreement with Nixon.

In addition, Jacobson explained to Stano that he should confess to all murders he had committed in the Seventh Judicial Circuit and left the bodies of the victims there because if Stano was found guilty of a murder after the plea of guilty was entered and he was sentenced by Judge Foxman, Stano would probably “get the electric chair” for that crime.

Jacobson also determined at this time that because of the circumstances of the case, because he knew that bodies would be located within several jurisdictions located within the Seventh Judicial Circuit and because he knew that there would be arguments among these jurisdictions over their respective authorities, that he would like Crow to be the clearing house for all of the cases to which Stano confessed pursuant to the plea agreement Jacobson had negotiated with Nixon. asked Crow not to query Stano about bodies outside the Seventh Judicial Circuit. In this manner Jacobson could work through Crow without having to deal with other police officers and agencies in the Seventh Judicial Circuit.

(a) Meetings between Crow, McMillan and Jacobson

It was approximately seventeen months from the date this plea agreement was struck until the entry of Stano’s plea of guilty before the state trial court on September 2, 1981. Against his background, there were a series of three meetings involving Crow, McMillan and Jacobson, as well as others, which were the subject of evidence before this Court.

First, around May 7, 1980, Warren Walker requested a meeting with Crow to look at Stano’s car at Jacobson’s office. On this date, Crow had obtained Stano’s statement about the murder of Mary Carol Maher and his statement about leaving another body on an interstate highway median.

Crow went to Jacobson’s office where he saw Walker and Jacobson and first met the psychologist, Dr. Ann McMillan, whom Jacobson had earlier hired to get background information and to conduct psychological testing on Stano. At this meeting, Crow learned that McMillan would examine Stano the next day.

Crow talked to the people present for about thirty minutes, then searched Stano’s car and left. While on the premises, Crow told Warren Walker that he thought Stano was involved in more than the murder of Mary Carol Maher and that he had reason to believe that Stano had been involved in the Ramona Neal case and the Toni Vann Haddocks case.

Next, Crow saw Jacobson in Deland at the jail annex probably around May 8, 1980. This was an unplanned encounter. Jacobson invited Crow to join him and Dr. McMillan at the Holiday House restaurant for lunch which lasted about one hour. Again, this meeting with Crow was not prearranged. During lunch, Crow was advised for the first time by Jacobson and McMillan that there was a problem with a test that McMillan had administered to Stano. Jacobson and McMillan suggested that Crow also ask Stano to take the test again to the best of his knowledge.

Crow testified that no diagnosis of Stano was given to him by McMillan, and although McMillan and Jacobson discussed theories, Crow did not agree with what they were saying. Crow chose to remain silent rather than become involved in the conversation. confessed to Jacobson that he had committed murders about which Crow either knew nothing or considered Stano only a suspect. When they asked Crow point blank for his opinion, Crow retreated from the conversation and told them he would let them know his views in the future when it was appropriate. Crow suspected at the time that Stano might be a long term killer.

The third meeting occurred approximately one week after this meeting in Deland at the Holiday House, sometime after May 9th but before June 3rd, 1980. Within a week following the meeting at the Deland Holiday House, Larry Nixon told Crow that there was an agreement between Nixon and Jacobson and that Crow should cooperate with Jacobson and tell Jacobson exactly what Crow knew about any murders he thought that Stano may have committed to see if Stano would give information. Jacobson called Crow shortly thereafter to meet with him. This meeting was at Ann McMillan’s office, and on Crow’s arrival McMillan, Jacobson, and Stano’s mother and father were present.

At this meeting, Crow identified to Jacobson and the others present the possible victims whom he suspected were linked to Stano and a general description of where the bodies were found: the girl in the blue and white bikini whose body had been found in Tomoka State Park, the girl whose body had been found by the power lines in Tomoka State Park, the girl who had been found on the beach at New Smyrna Beach, and girl whose body Stano said he had left on an Interstate highway. Crow did not tell Jacobson or any of the other persons present the details of these four homicides.

He told them just enough information so that they could identify the murder victim to Stano and get information from Stano in order to fulfill the agreement Jacobson and Stano had struck with Nixon. As a result of this third meeting, Jacobson was to talk to Stano and was then to provide information on the murders in the Seventh Judicial Circuit in which Stano was involved.

At no time did Crow ask Mr. or Mrs. Stano or any of the other persons present to obtain information for his investigation from Stano. Jacobson, however, asked Stano’s parents to talk to their son to urge him to be truthful. At this time, in an effort to comply with the provisions of the plea agreement he had negotiated for his client with Larry Nixon, Jacobson consented to Stano talking to Paul Crow about murders for which Stano was responsible in the Seventh Judicial Circuit.

(b) McMillan’s Lack of Influence on Crow’s Interrogation Techniques

From the evidence presented, the Court finds that at no time did Dr. McMillan give instruction to Sgt. Crow on how to interrogate Stano nor did Crow ever discuss with McMillan how to question Stano. When Crow first met McMillan, he had already obtained at least one confession from Stano to a murder Stano had committed.

Further, Crow was a seasoned investigator who had attended the F.B.I. Academy and had extensive instruction in courses such as psychological profiles, personality dysfunctions and serial killers.

The source of Petitioner’s contention that McMillan instructed Crow as to how he should interrogate Stano appears to have come from McMillan herself and McMillan’s subsequent statements to news reporters. McMillan testified that on one of the three times noted above when she met Crow, she understood that Jacobson told her to discuss with Crow how to question Stano. She testified that at the time she felt it was ludicrous for her to tell a trained police officer how to conduct an investigation and felt uncomfortable with Jacobson’s alleged suggestion. Since she had read something about Ted Bundy, McMillan stated that she said in response to Jacobson’s direction, “Feed on his ego”, and also that Stano would “lay down false trails”.

She testified that she was very general and not specific in her statement to Crow and that she knew at the time that Crow already had a confession from Stano. Further, she testified that she had no knowledge of any interrogation methods used by Crow. She knew at the time that Crow was a well trained and highly regarded police officer and stated that she had no idea why anyone would ask her to tell Crow how to interrogate Stano.

If this conversation occurred at all, and both Jacobson and Crow deny that it did, this simplistic statement by Dr. McMillan did not rise to the level of McMillan instructing Crow on how to interrogate Stano. “Feeding” on the ego of a suspect is a well known method of interrogation by law enforcement which was neither invented by McMillan nor revealed by her to Crow for the first time. Further, there was no evidence that this interrogation method was employed by Crow.

Finally, the record reflects that Crow knew long before he met McMillan that Stano did not immediately confess to crimes he committed and “laid down false trails”, i.e. in Stano’s claim that he did not associate with black individuals when asked about Toni Vann Haddocks. At best, McMillan appears to have misperceived a comment by Don Jacobson during the course of one of the three encounters she had with Crow.

In any event, her statement that Stano would “lay down false trials”, and that Crow should “feed on his ego,” if made, was either not heard by Jacobson and Crow or, if heard, was viewed as so utterly insignificant as to be unworthy of note.

McMillan’s role was limited and strictly defined. She had been hired by Jacobson for the purposes of administering a psychological test to Stano and gathering background information as noted above. She was not trained in police interrogation methods. There was no evidence that any statement she made had any effect on how Crow interrogated Stano. Crow testified that he did not discuss with McMillan ways to interrogate Stano, the manner in which to pose questions, the areas to cover or how to interrogate a suspect in multiple murders.

By the time McMillan met Crow, Crow was far ahead of McMillan in his investigation of Stano and in his training on how to interview criminal suspects. Crow did not need, or receive, any assistance from Dr. McMillan in conducting interrogation incident to his investigation of Stano.

(c) No “Covert” Copy of Jacobson’s Letter Delivered to Crow

Finally, the evidence is undisputed that Crow never received a “covert” copy of a letter from Jacobson to Stano dated July 12, 1982 (Petitioner’s 36 and 132). Crow did not see and did not discuss this letter or its contents with anyone until this issue was raised by Stano in his post trial habeas petitions.

Further, Crow never told anyone that “he was Stano’s best source.” Jacobson testified that he meant in this letter by the statement “your best source is still Sergeant Paul Crow” that Crow was the best source for Stano to find out if there was use immunity for any murder he committed in addition to the six Volusia County murders to which he confessed before he entered his plea of guilty on September 2, 1981.

Jacobson testified that he had intended to send, but did not send, a copy of this letter to Crow to underscore that there was no promise of life imprisonment as to any other murders Stano confessed to committing and to make Crow understand that Stano should be asking for immunity. The Court finds that Paul Crow had no knowledge of this letter at any time prior to being questioned about it incident to Petitioner’s allegations in this case.

(3) CONFESSION TO MURDER OF TONI VANN HADDOCKS

Meanwhile, Toni Vann Haddocks had been listed as a missing person from Daytona Beach, Florida. Around April 6, 1980, her body had been found in Volusia County in an area where Stano used to live and which was near the residence of Stano’s brother. Stano did not have a good relationship with his brother at the time.

On April 20, 1980, at the request of Detective Lehman of the Volusia County Sheriff’s Department, Crow went to the scene in Volusia County where the portions of the body had been found. Crow felt from the scene where the body was found that there were similarities between the murder of Toni Vann Haddocks and the murder of Mary Carol Maher, particularly the fact that branches of small trees had been used to cover the bodies of both victims.

Further, Crow was advised that the University of Florida Anthropology Department had determined that a possible weapon used in the Vann Haddocks murder was a can opener, a weapon which had been used by Stano in the Donna Hensley case. (Respondent’s 7).

Stano had denied knowledge of Toni Vann Haddocks in his initial interview with Gadberry and Crow on April 1, 1980, stating that he did not associate with blacks. However, when Crow sent Detective Lewis, a man who is similar in physical appearance to Stano, to an area known as “Ridgewood” which is frequented by black prostitutes, in order to obtain information, the black prostitutes at first thought Lewis was Stano. Several of these prostitutes stated they knew Stano from previous associations with him. When Lewis reported this information to Crow, Crow realized that this information contradicted what Stano had stated earlier on April 1st.

Between April 1, 1980 and May 9, 1980, Crow stated that he saw Stano five or less times. On these occasions he tried to get background information on Stano and to maintain rapport. Crow and Detective Lehman of the Volusia County Sheriff’s office, which had jurisdiction over the Vann Haddocks investigation, decided that Crow should talk to Stano about the Vann Haddocks’ murder as an experiment to see if Stano would talk to Crow based in part on this rapport.

On May 9, 1980, Crow talked to Stano about the Vann Haddocks crime after Stano was given his rights and signed a waiver form (Appendix 73 to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus). Stano confessed to this crime ( See also Petitioner’s 158). The body of this victim had been scattered by animals. Stano knew details concerning the victim which the police did not know. For instance, when Crow asked Stano if he knew something about the victim which the police would not know, Stano stated that Vann Haddocks had a cast on her arm. When Crow asked Stano if it was a sling cast, Stano stated that it was an arm cast not a sling cast.

On May 19, 1980, and June 3, 1980, Crow and Lehman interviewed Stano, telling Stano, inter alia, that other jurisdictions wanted him for murders which it was suspected he had committed in such other jurisdictions and that it was not likely that these jurisdictions would be interested in Stano if Stano was doing a term of life in prison in Florida. They also advised Stano that they did not have enough information to keep Stano in Florida.

Crow testified, particularly with reference to the plea agreement that had been entered by Stano through Don Jacobson with Larry Nixon, that they as police officers were not misstating the case when they said that they were working with Stano in order to obtain a confession in the Vann Haddocks case. Crow testified that in this interview, Lehman acted as the lead interrogator and that Crow disagreed with Lehman’s theory that Stano had multiple personalities. ( See Petitioner’s 149).

(4) CONFESSIONS IN MARCH OF 1981 TO MURDERS OF HEARD, HAMILTON, NEAL, AND JANE DOE

Between May 19, 1980 and March of 1981, Crow continued to talk to Stano and to see him from time to time in jail although their conversations were not about cases. Although Stano called Crow on the telephone, and wrote and called others including Ann McMillan, Crow had only Stano’s confessions to the Maher and Vann Haddocks murders during this period of time inspite of the fact that he had previously told Jacobson of his suspicions concerning four additional murder victims in Volusia County.

Around March 6, 1981, Stano indicated that he wanted to talk about other murders in Volusia County. Crow contacted Jacobson and Nixon, and a court order was issued, with the knowledge of Don Jacobson, to allow Detective Hudson of the Volusia County Sheriff’s Department and Sgt. Crow of the Daytona Beach Police Department to bring Stano from the Volusia County jail to the Daytona Beach Police Department for questioning. This transportation occurred on March 12, 1981. does not appear to this Court that this misstatement has material impact on the issues in the case. ( See Respondent’s 13 and Petitioner’s 17). (Petitioner’s 21, 22, 37 and 128).

On March 12, 1981 Crow advised Stano of his Miranda rights, and Stano executed a waiver form. Crow and Hudson then questioned Stano concerning the four cases for which he had been transported to Daytona Beach as part of the plea agreement to discuss and which were referenced in Stano’s March 6, 1981 letter: the Nancy Heard, Jane Doe, Ramona Neal, and Linda Hamilton murders.

Stano gave additional details of each murder beyond what Crow had related to Jacobson and Stano’s father in their last meeting. Crow was not familiar with many of the details of the cases. The investigators took four confessions from Stano, one after another, concerning Hamilton, Neal, Jane Doe and Heard in that order. These confessions were transcribed and later signed by Stano after review on March 17, 1981. (Petitioner’s 168(a)-(d)).

Although Stano was asked questions concerning the four murders and bodies found in Volusia County pursuant to the plea agreement between him and his attorney, Don Jacobson, on the one hand and Larry Nixon on the other, and although he had been admonished by his attorney not to reveal the murders he had committed outside the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in the course of trying to relate facts and reconstruct the route he took with reference to the Jane Doe murder, Stano became confused over whether he had left the body in a median on Interstate 95 or Interstate 4.

In the course of discussing the Jane Doe murder and trying to retrace his route and the events of the murder, Stano “went off on a tangent” and volunteered information about Titusville and taking the girl to a skating rink, stabbing her and putting her in a dried ditch, then throwing her purse out of his car.

Crow noted to himself that these facts did not fit the facts of the case about which Stano was being questioned although no name for this victim was given. Stano did not mention the name of Scharf, and Crow did not feel at this time that Stano was making a confession to a murder. Crow made a notation of these facts given by Stano on his notes concerning the murder of Susan Bickrest, a victim whose name was supplied to Crow by Dave Hudson.

During these confessions on March 12, 1981, Stano gave additional details about the four murders. Neither Hudson nor Crow gave Stano details or case report files. Neither man coached Stano or edited sections of the tape recording of his confessions. Detective Hudson had the files on each of the four cases which he did not give to Sgt. Crow.

On March 12, Stano was returned to the Volusia County jail, and the investigators made plans to have Stano take them the next day, March 13, 1981, to the sites where two bodies had been found.

On March 13, 1981, Hudson, Crow and Stano drove to Tomoka State Park, an area comprising thousands of acres of everglades-like vegetation. Here Stano first directed the officers to the location where he had left the body of Ramona Neal. Crow did not know where this body had been found. Stano pointed out the site after directing the officers to make the proper turns. Hudson confirmed to Crow that the place Stano identified was in fact the place where the Neal body had been found.

Next, Stano directed the officers to drive approximately two miles away in the area of power lines where Stano identified the place where he had left the second body, that of Nancy Heard. Stano referred to this area as Cobb’s Corner. Crow did not know the area or where the body had been found and could not see the power lines until Stano directed the officers to the exact location where he had left the body. Hudson again confirmed to Crow that Stano had identified the place where this body had been found.

On September 2, 1981, Stano entered a plea of guilty to the Volusia County murders of Maher, Vann Haddocks and Heard, and in exchange was sentenced to life in prison after a hearing to determine his competency. The Hamilton, Neal and Jane Doe cases were not prosecuted. Respondent’s 17(a). At no time did Jacobson reveal to the authorities information he had learned from his client regarding the homicides Stano had committed outside the Seventh Judicial Circuit beyond these six murders encompassed in this September 2, 1981 plea of guilty.

(5) CONTACT OF STANO BY OTHERS THROUGH PAUL CROW

There is no evidence that Stano was deprived from contact with others by Sgt. Crow.

Stano was housed at a variety of prisons in addition to the Daytona Beach jail. For instance he was housed at the Volusia County jail at Deland, the Seminole County jail and at Florida State Prison. He was also subject to visits and interrogations by persons who had no relationship to Paul Crow. In particular, Stano’s father, Eugene Stano, testified that he saw Stano whenever he wished, whether Stano was in Starke or Daytona Beach, and that he saw his son several times in Crow’s office. He was at no time prohibited from seeing his son.

Even when Stano was brought back to the Daytona Beach jail pursuant to court order in August of 1982, Stano was not deprived of contact with other persons. The state court had directed in its order that the Sheriff of Volusia County and the Chief of the Daytona Beach Police Department must keep Stano “safely held in close custody.” (Petitioner’s 37).

While safety precautions were implemented as noted later in this opinion to route visits to Stano through Crow while Stano was at the Daytona Beach jail in order to prevent threats on Stano’s life, for Stano’s security, comfort and safety, and to channel, not prevent, visits to Stano, the Court finds that there is no evidence that Sgt. Crow prevented anyone from seeing Stano.

(6) THE BOOK(S)

It is not surprising in view of the nature of the crimes which were being investigated with reference to Stano that several people contemplated writing books about the events which were rocking the small Florida east coast beach community, and further that rumors concerning future books and potential wealth to be derived therefrom abounded in this community.

Several people contemplated writing books. Stano himself wanted to write a book and wrote several people, including his attorney Donald Jacobson, concerning this possible venture. There was evidence that Stano’s parents initially wanted to write a book until they were inundated by news articles. Kathy Kelly, a staff writer of some 29 years with the Daytona Beach News Journal, went so far as to submit several chapters of her proposed book to a literary agent, but she testified that she has not pursued this venture further. Terrell Walter Ecker, a free lance writer and journalist for over 25 years, also began work on a book in which he hoped to focus on Crow’s investigation and other investigations of Stano. Ecker had a literary agent, the Foley Agency in New York City, but his work remained unfinished after he suffered a brain aneurysm in April of 1982. The subsequent brain surgery ended his hope of writing a book.

In contrast, Donald Jacobson testified that he at no time had an interest in writing a book and never took any action toward authorship of one. However, both Donald Jacobson and Kathy Kelly testified that there were many rumors that Crow was going to write a book and that both of them mentioned the rumors to Crow on occasion. Both Kelly and Jacobson stated that Crow never indicated to them that he was writing a book, although they knew he had been approached by many people to do so.

Kelly testified that when she told Crow about her book, Crow did not suggest that they author a book jointly. Jacobson stated that the rumors about Crow writing a book became a form of a joke. When people would see Crow, they would greet him with “Well, how is the book going?” as a humorous form of greeting.

After hearing the testimony of the witnesses on this issue, it appears to this Court that the purported knowledge of some witnesses as to an alleged book Crow intended to write is based upon rumor and not fact. For instance, Kenneth James Morrison testified that he was in a room while Crow and Stano were talking about a book but that he did not know if they were serious or joking. He has no clear memory of the time of this conversation or what was said but testified that it was “a well known fact” among the investigators working on the case that a book was going to be written. He further testified that it was “almost a joke”.

The Court finds that testimony given by Paul Crow on the subject of his potential authorship of a book is the most credible evidence provided by any of the witnesses in the case on this subject. Sgt. Crow testified that the concept of a book has at all times been and remains only a possibility in his mind.

In any event, he felt that any book in which he made any contribution while his investigation was ongoing would harm his investigation, and he did not intend to pursue the concept of writing a book until his investigation had been completely ended.

He testified that rumors abounded in his office that he should write a book and that he could get rich from it. Further, many people contacted him about the possibility of writing a book. He took no steps to make this a reality and rebuffed all inquiries except for one from Terrell Ecker.

In 1981 or 1982, Terrell Ecker was one of the persons who contacted Crow about writing a book. Crow thought Ecker’s idea was interesting and talked with Ecker about a possible collaboration in the future. However, when Crow further read some of Ecker’s work, Crow decided that he did not like Ecker’s style, which he felt was sensational with sexual overtones and of a tabloid approach.

Crow’s concept of any book that he might participate in writing in the future would be limited to an informational and educational book for law enforcement academies to use in training officers how to investigate a multi-jurisdictional case. Crow felt that there was no treatise at the time to explain to law enforcement agencies how to deal with conflicts among jurisdictions investigating cases which, from his own experience with the Stano case, had led to confusion and frustration.

The initial contact of Crow by Ecker concerning the possibility of jointly writing a book in the future was only that, an initial overture to discuss the possibility of a future joint effort. Crow did not talk to Ecker’s agent, had no literary agent himself, and did not authorize Ecker to discuss the possibility of a book with Ecker’s agent.

Crow did not enter any agreement with Ecker, and the idea of a joint book was not further pursued by Crow past this initial overture. Ecker’s inquiry had no effect on the way Crow investigated Stano’s crimes. The initial solicitation of Crow by Ecker was rejected after Crow determined that Ecker’s work was inaccurate, sensational and glamorized.

While Terrell Ecker did not appear to know about Crow’s evaluation of Ecker’s work, his testimony basically echoes that given by Crow. Ecker stated that he discussed writing a book with Crow after Stano had entered a guilty plea to the six Volusia County murders and he thought the cases involving Stano were over. Ecker testified that neither he nor Crow would be comfortable writing a book about an ongoing case.

Ecker further testified that it was his intent to write a book with or without Crow, and that he had solicited Crow’s input because he felt Crow would add “color” to Ecker’s book. Ecker did not testify to any additional contact with Crow after Ecker’s initial overture to Crow, although Ecker did confer with his literary agent about a possible book. Ecker did not pursue the book concept further for himself or anyone else after his brain aneurysm.

This contact by Mr. Ecker concerning the possibilities of writing a book in the future was the only one Crow did not immediately reject.

When he testified before the Court in 1992, Paul Crow stated that he still thought from time to time about writing a book, although he has not taken any steps to make this idea come to fruition and has not prepared for publishing, or published, anything, either directly or indirectly, alone or with anyone else, concerning Stano.

While Crow testified that there was a great deal of office talk about the potential of writing a book and that many people told him “You should write a book-you’ll get rich!”, he took no steps to author a book from the time he first met Stano to the present date. His brief conversation with Mr. Ecker about the potential of writing a book together was quickly dispelled by Crow’s own decision concerning the inappropriateness of Ecker’s style, and in any event was a contemplation which was not to be pursued until Crow’s work investigating the crimes of Mr. Stano had been concluded. This brief discussion was not pursued further.

Crow’s consideration of the idea of writing a book sometime in the future has remained the contemplation of a person who finds himself, because of unique historical events, in a position to make a scholarly contribution to law enforcement at some appropriate time in the future. That time has not yet arrived. There is no evidence that this thought had any impact whatsoever on Crow’s investigation of Stano.

Crow did not discuss writing a book with Mr. Morrison or Mr. Eugene Stano, Petitioner’s father. Further, he never heard that Don Jacobson was writing a book and did not discuss writing a book with Don Jacobson.

From the evidence presented, the Court finds that Crow did not discuss jointly writing a book with Stano or intend that he and Stano would share in the proceeds of a book. The Court finds that Paul Crow did not state to anyone that “the more confessions Stano made, the better Crow’s book would be” or words to like effect. Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary are without merit.

(7) INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF STANO FOR THE MURDER OF CATHY LEE SCHARF

During Stano’s confessions on March 12, 1981 as part of his plea agreement with the State Attorney in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, and as noted earlier while Stano was trying to piece together his route in the Jane Doe murder where the victim was left in the median of an interstate highway, Stano mentioned facts concerning his route which appeared to be inconsistent with the information Crow had ascertained as to the six homicides under investigation in Volusia County.

Shortly after March 12, 1981, Crow called Captain DeWitt of the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department to ask if he had any information concerning a homicide from the sparse facts that Stano had related. Crow did not have a name of a victim. Captain DeWitt stated he recalled nothing about any homicide victim in Brevard County which might be consistent with such facts.

Sometime later, Crow asked Kathy Kelly, a reporter with the local newspaper in Daytona Beach, if she had heard of any case that might fit the information. Kelly researched the matter and sent Crow a copy of an October 6, 1977 news article. Crow then wrote the State Attorney for Brevard County, Douglas Cheshire, Jr., in the hope that his office would commence an investigation, since Crow felt there had been a lack of response from the Sheriff’s office.

Approximately two months later, in April or May of 1981, an Assistant State Attorney from Brevard County called and told Crow that they would be in touch with him in the future. Thereafter, Lt. James Bollick of the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department called Crow to advise that Detective Johnny L. Manis of his office would be investigating the case. to say, but not to question him about the Scharf case. Some time elapsed, and when Crow was not contacted, Crow then wrote Manis a letter dated November 20, 1981, some seven to eight months after Crow had originally called Captain DeWitt. (Petitioner’s 34).

Manis stated that he talked to Crow by telephone after receiving Crow’s letter. However, up to December of 1981, Manis testified he did not do much work on the Scharf case except to talk to Crow by telephone. While Manis testified that during a telephone conversation with Crow in November or December of 1981, Crow advised that he had been given some information by Stano, Crow did not state he had a confession from Stano as to this murder.

On January 20, 1982, Manis went to the Florida State Prison with Mr. Bollick to talk to Stano. Manis introduced himself and talked to Stano for approximately two hours after first advising Stano of his rights. Manis testified that he and Stano talked about many things, ranging from putting in a sprinkler system to the Scharf case. Manis was attempting to build his own rapport with Stano and intended to see Stano again. Since Manis was the homicide investigator in the jurisdiction charged with prosecuting the case, Manis did not invite Crow to join him.

In the course of this interview, Stano told Manis that he did not recall any crimes in Brevard County and did not recall telling Crow about any. Manis testified that Stano did not deny the crime. According to Manis’ testimony, Stano basically stated that he did not remember the incident, and the bottom line was that Stano did not admit to committing the murder.

When Manis returned to Brevard County, he contacted Sgt. Crow and told him that Stano had not admitted to the murder of a victim found in Brevard County. Crow responded that Stano would only talk to persons if he liked them and stated that he, Crow, would try to get back over to talk to Stano at sometime in the future at the Florida State Prison.

Between January 20, 1982 and April 23, 1982, Manis talked to Crow by telephone approximately two to three times. Manis noted that Crow was extremely busy. During one of these telephone calls to Crow, Manis told Crow that he wanted to go to Florida State Prison again to interview Stano with reference to two murder victims, Sandra Dubose and Cathy Lee Scharf. Manis testified that he requested that Crow ask Stano if Stano would talk to Manis because Manis felt Crow had rapport with Stano.

Thereafter, Crow drove to the prison, and Manis flew there with his supervisor, Mr. Bollick. Because Manis was late in arriving at the Florida State Prison, he met Crow as Crow was leaving the prison. Crow advised Manis that Stano insisted on being transported back to Volusia County before Stano would talk further to anyone about any crime. Crow advised Manis that he was going to try to obtain authority to have Stano transported back to Daytona Beach and that he would let Manis know if that could be accomplished.

Pursuant to an order of the state court, Stano was returned from the Florida State Prison in Starke to the Daytona Beach jail during the week of August 10, 1982 (Petitioner’s 38). Since the Daytona Beach jail is not a maximum security facility and since many jurisdictions were seeking to have their representatives question Stano, a procedure to route all requests for interviews of Stano through Crow was devised for security as well as for the protection of Stano. After conferring with Crow by telephone, Manis advised Crow that he would be coming to the Daytona Beach jail on August 11, 1982.

Manis testified that he had been keeping Dean Moxley, the assistant prosecuting attorney in Brevard County within the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, advised of his actions and that Moxley had suggested that Manis try to talk to Stano again. Therefore Manis drove to the Daytona Beach Police Department where he spent four to five minutes with Crow in Crow’s office.

Manis stated that he originally went there to see when he could talk to Stano, and when he arrived Crow stated that Manis could talk to Stano “right now”. Manis testified he was caught by surprise because he did not have a tape recorder, his file on the case, or even a brief case and was not prepared to talk to Stano. Nevertheless, he followed Crow to an interview room where Stano was waiting, and Crow introduced Manis to Stano. Crow gave Stano his Miranda rights, and Stano filled out the waiver form in the presence of Manis.

Crow then asked Stano if he remembered Manis, and Stano responded “Yes”. Crow left to get coffee for Manis and Stano and came back in two to three minutes. Crow asked Manis and Stano if they wanted anything else. Stano answered that he would like to go for a jog, and everyone laughed. Manis then began his interview, and Crow stood there for a few minutes before he left Manis and Stano alone for the interview. Manis alone asked Stano questions. Stano discussed both the Scharf and the Dubose murders with Manis. After the interview, Manis returned to Brevard County.

Manis returned from Brevard County to Crow’s office at the Daytona Beach Police Department the next day on August 12, 1982 and told Crow that he wanted to record Stano’s testimony. Crow advised Manis that several other agents were waiting to interview Stano and that Stano was fairly booked for the day. Nevertheless, Crow eventually took Manis to the interview room where Stano was waiting.

At this interview, Manis had his Scharf file, his tape recorder, his Dubose file, and a waiver of rights form. Manis read the Miranda rights to Stano. Stano waived his rights. This is also reflected in the recording of this interview. Petitioner’s 149. Manis conducted the interview, and Crow came in and out of the room during the interview from time to time. Crow was not there for all of the interview, nor did he ask Stano any questions during the interview.

Manis identified as a true and correct transcript of Stano’s confession on August 12, 1982, an exhibit marked Respondent’s 30. This Court noted, without satisfactory explanation from counsel, that in the transcript of this interview which was provided to the appellate court in Petitioner’s appendix and which was admitted into the record before this Court as Respondent’s 31, that the name of Manis as the questioner in the original transcript has been eliminated and the name of Paul Crow has been inserted as the questioner in the place of Mr. Manis. Thus, it appears that someone has tampered with this document presented to both this court and the appellate court.

The evidence is undisputed that Paul Crow did not participate by asking questions in either interview of Stano on August 11, 1982 or August 12, 1982, and that during the taped confession and interview of Stano on August 12, 1982, Manis is the only person who asked Stano questions. (Respondent’s 149). While Crow was present very briefly during the interviews on both dates, Manis was the person conducting the questioning.

During the interview on August 12, 1982, Manis took a statement from Stano concerning the Scharf murder first and then a statement concerning the Dubose murder next. (Petitioner’s 189). The information provided by Stano concerning these confessions was given by Manis to John Dean Moxley, Jr., the Assistant State Attorney in charge of prosecuting the first degree murder cases of Scharf in Brevard County and of Dubose in Seminole County for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit.

From a second point of view, Dean Moxley testified that he was involved in two prosecutions of Gerald Stano involving jury trials, the Scharf case prosecution in September of 1983 which resulted in a mistrial and the Scharf case prosecution in December of 1988 which is the subject of the instant case.

Sometime in 1982, Manis talked to Moxley about the letter from Crow implicating Stano in a murder in Brevard County. In April of 1982, Moxley had Crow’s letter, the information from Manis and Bollick concerning their visit to the Florida State Prison when Stano stated he did not recall the Scharf incident, and certain crime scene facts that appeared to fit facts that Stano had given to Crow. Moxley decided to present the case to the grand jury in 1982 to encourage the Brevard County Sheriff to spend more time and effort investigating the case.

Moxley felt that there was probable cause to indict Stano, but there was sentiment in Brevard County that since Stano was subject to incarceration for life as a result of the Volusia County cases, additional effort should not be devoted to his prosecution for a murder in Brevard County. Therefore, the presentation of information to the initial grand jury by Moxley was designed to learn if the grand jury would recommend further investigation of the case. The grand jury did recommend that the Sheriff further investigate the case.

In March of 1983, Moxley made a second presentation to the Brevard County grand jury. This time he presented as witnesses officers Crow, Hudson, Manis, and Kendrick and his Brevard County State’s Attorney investigator, George Dirshka. The grand jury issued an indictment as to Stano for the murder of Ms. Scharf.

Moxley testified concerning the extensive investigation that he conducted himself and directed others to conduct with reference to the prosecution of the Scharf case. For instance, he interviewed witnesses, attended two depositions of Paul Crow, and talked to many witnesses in the Maher case because he felt that it involved similar fact evidence under the Williams Rule. Moxley also sent investigators to other jurisdictions to examine their files in an effort to gain other similar fact evidence.

In addition, Moxley personally compared the facts contained in the confession of Stano to Manis with the crime scene and the route which Stano stated to Manis that he had taken. Moxley determined that the description of the body being covered with palm fronds was consistent with the several palm fronds placed on top of Scharf’s body when she was found.

Stano’s statement concerning her Indian jewelry matched the ring with the Indian head that she was wearing when her body was found. Stano’s statement concerning Scharf’s clothing, her age, and her general description matched that of the victim.

Further, Moxley determined that Stano’s statement of the circumstances of his travel and the route that he took were consistent with the details of the murder. Moxley personally drove the route given by Stano. Stano mentioned an orange grove and a canal which Moxley located as Stano had described them.

In addition, since the time of the murder, the Kennedy Space Center Preserve had been established, and the highway, which formerly had been called “A1A” in 1974 at the time of the murder, was designated State Road 3 at the Kennedy Space Center in 1983 at the time Moxley drove the route.

Moxley therefore obtained an old map of the area in order to check the facts concerning the route given by Stano. Moxley found that the route given by Stano in his confession in 1982 to Manis was consistent with the facts of the route as they existed in 1974 at the time of the murder although the demarcations along the route in 1983 had been renamed.

Moxley utilized Crow as a fact witness at some proceedings which he handled in Brevard County incident to the Scharf case. At Moxley’s request, as noted above, Crow testified before the second Brevard County grand jury which issued the indictment of Stano in the Scharf case. Crow was also subpoenaed to testify in both trials and was deposed.

While Moxley used the statement that Stano made to Crow in March of 1981 in each trial, Moxley testified that without the confessions made on August 11 and August 12, 1982 by Stano to Manis, he would not prosecute the case because, while he had probable cause for the issuance of an indictment, he did not feel that he would have proof beyond a reasonable doubt with only the statement of Stano to Crow.

Moxley stated that the confessions of Stano to Manis on August 11 and August 12, 1982 were the most important confessions in his prosecution of Stano for the Scharf murder. Moxley testified that he did not consider the statement to Crow made by Stano in March of 1981 as the “lynch pin” of his case.

Moxley had no information that Stano had been promised life imprisonment for revealing the Scharf murder, and at no time did he have to go through Paul Crow to talk to Stano. Further on two occasions Stano himself confessed to Moxley that he had murdered Scharf and Dubose and offered to plead guilty to both murders in exchange for a promise of life imprisonment.

(8) RELATIONSHIP OF CROW AND GADBERRY

The Court has been troubled with the fact that Officer Gadberry, who took credit for solving the Mary Carol Maher murder in April of 1980, did not indicate his view that Stano did not know the facts of the crime or his concern that Stano had been fed information by Crow or that Stano was factually innocent of this crime until several years later. It therefore appears that a statement of facts on the relationship between Crow and Gadberry should be made.

Paul B. Crow, now Chief of the Daytona Beach Police Department, began in 1966 as a patrolman with this law enforcement agency. At the time of the initial confession by Stano in April of 1980, Crow was a sergeant in the Daytona Beach Police Department, was Gadberry’s supervisor on the Detective Bureau, and reported to Captain Powers.

When Officer James W. Gadberry, Jr. was asked on the witness stand whether Crow was his supervisor at the Detective Bureau at the Daytona Beach Police Department during 1980, Gadberry bristled and answered that Crow was his “unwritten” supervisor. However, both Captain Powers and Crow testified readily when asked the same question that Crow was Gadberry’s supervisor and the person to whom Gadberry reported.

From further evidence it appears that during the 1980’s Gadberry had been reprimanded by Crow and subsequently demoted from detective to patrolman. Captain Powers had charged Sergeant Crow with the responsibility of monitoring case control systems within the police department. Crow stated that during this time he found over 100 of Gadberry’s assigned cases had not been investigated by the department’s required due date and had not been worked for nine to ten months.

Crow had a conference with Gadberry and gave the latter two weeks to comply with the police department’s procedures. After this deadline had passed, Crow reviewed Gadberry’s work and found that some of the cases still had not been investigated. When he questioned Gadberry concerning these cases, Gadberry responded that he had been on vacation and had not been able to get to them. Crow investigated and found that Gadberry had not been on vacation and further found that Gadberry had left cases unattended in his desk. Crow reported the incident to Captain Powers.

In addition, at approximately the same time, Gadberry was deemed to have improperly handled the investigation of the death of a well-known sports figure, Lewis McSwain, and Crow was assigned to complete this investigation. As a result of these events, Captain Powers suspended Gadberry for one day and transferred Gadberry out of the Detective Bureau, placing him back in the patrol division.

Gadberry resigned from the Daytona Beach Police Department in September of 1982 to become the youth director of a church in Kentucky. He was rehired as a patrolman at the Daytona Beach Police Department in June of 1983, a position which he now holds. Patrolman is viewed as a step below the detective division within the Daytona Beach Police Department.

Gadberry had also been criticized for his investigation in the Donna Hensley case. The police report reflects that Hensley defended herself against Stano, received puncture wounds with a can opener and stab wounds with a knife, and that Stano tried to pour muriatic acid on her. Gadberry noted on the Hensley report that Hensley had “superficial wounds”. (Petitioner’s 148)

When Lt. John N. Power and his partner Officer O’Brien saw Hensley in the course of their duties for the Daytona Beach Police Department, she showed them her wounds which were still oozing. They also learned in this conversation that the suspect’s car, license tag and description were available to the police. These police officers then went back to the police station and contacted Gadberry to discuss the case.

After determining that Gadberry was not going to take appropriate action in the case, the police officers made a request to their supervisor, Sgt. Crow, that if Gadberry was not going to conduct the investigation into the Hensley case that they wished to be assigned the Hensley case to complete the investigation. As a result of their complaint, Crow talked to Gadberry about the Hensley case. Shortly thereafter, Gadberry had Stano arrested on April 1, 1980 and brought into the Daytona Beach Police Department where Stano made his first confession as noted earlier.

Captain Powers observed that while Gadberry did not appear to be resentful when Powers initially directed Crow to enter the interview room with Gadberry to question Stano on April 1, 1980, and thereafter when Powers ordered both officers to accompany each other with two backup officers and Stano to see if Stano could locate the site where the Maher body had been found, Powers noticed that Gadberry became resentful toward Crow when the rumors began to flow in the Daytona Beach Police Department that Crow would be writing a book about this experience.

Further, while Gadberry testified that he was not for or against the death penalty, that it did not contradict his religious beliefs, and that he held no strong views one way or the other, Captain Powers testified that Gadberry had told Powers that Gadberry was definitely opposed to the death penalty.

Finally, Dean Moxley testified that on July 29, 1983 he interviewed Gadberry about the Hensley and Maher cases in the course of his trial preparation for the prosecution of Stano in the Scharf murder. Gadberry did not make any statement to Moxley to the effect that Stano was innocent, or that he questioned Crow’s interview techniques, or that Crow had led Stano to the place where Mary Carol Maher’s body had been found. Moxley further testified that Gadberry told him during this interview that the odor of Mary Carol Maher’s body was still at the site when Gadberry and Crow visited it with Stano. Gadberry, in contrast, denied that he had ever been contacted by Moxley.

While some of these statements are not material to the issues in this case, they reflect that Gadberry’s testimony conflicts in part with the testimony of several witnesses and further help to explain why Gadberry has given evidence which is in conflict with the testimony of other witnesses.

In any event, as knowledgeable and experienced police investigators testified during the evidentiary hearing before the Court, most suspects do not tell the truth the first time they are interrogated. Giving a suspect some information is a proper interrogation technique. It is not inappropriate to tell a suspect details to refresh the suspect’s memory, particularly if he is confessing to many crimes, because details of a crime to a suspect can run together.

It is the finding of this Court after listening to the evidence and observing the demeanor of the witnesses, that Sgt. Crow did not feed information to Stano and thus cause Stano to confess to crimes which he did not commit as contended by Officer Gadberry.

(9) THE PROSECUTION TEAM

The concurring opinion on remand requests a determination whether Detective Paul Crow was “part of the prosecution team in the Scharf case” and whether he acted under the authority of the Brevard County Prosecutor, Dean Moxley. Since this Court has found that there was no collusion or coercion as alleged by Stano, the issue whether Paul Crow of the Daytona Beach Police Department in Volusia County was part of the prosecution team in a jurisdiction outside his own, that of Brevard County, may not be necessary to this opinion. However, since evidence was presented in this trial court on the issue, and the appellate court has indicated its interest, the Court enters its findings of fact as follows.

After Stano acknowledged his responsibility to the six murders within the jurisdiction of Volusia County and entered his plea of guilty in September of 1981, Stano went to prison, and the Volusia County cases were concluded. However, Stano continued to call and write a variety of persons, including but not limited to his former attorney Donald Jacobson, Kathy Kelly and Paul Crow.

Donald Jacobson cautioned Stano both before and after the conclusion of the six murder cases in Volusia County that his agreement concerning confessing to murders in Volusia County in exchange for life imprisonment had ended on September 2, 1981 when he entered his plea of guilty, and that he should not confess to any other murders unless he first received immunity. Jacobson knew, because of Stano’s confessions to him and from his own investigation, that Stano was responsible for the murders of more than the six women in Volusia County.

The murders to which Stano confessed and the factual circumstances of each often involved different law enforcement agencies and their investigations. It is the custom among law enforcement agencies that the agency which has jurisdiction over the territory where the body of a homicide victim is found will take jurisdiction of the case for purposes of prosecution.

However, when a victim resides in and is reported missing in one jurisdiction, and the body is found within the jurisdiction of another agency, it is a common practice for the jurisdiction having responsibility for the prosecution of the murder, i.e. the jurisdiction where the body is found, to request information from other jurisdictions in the course of gathering facts and evidence concerning the case. This is for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is to save the cost and expense of sending investigators from one jurisdiction into another jurisdiction to do work which could be easily accomplished by the jurisdiction receiving the request for information.

Therefore, if one jurisdiction is asked for information from another jurisdiction, the second jurisdiction will try to provide the information to the requesting agency. This does not necessarily make the investigation joint. The jurisdiction receiving the request is obtaining evidence or information in a specifically designated sphere, even though if assistance is provided to the requesting jurisdiction, persons from that other agency may be required to testify as to what was done by them when the requesting agency proceeds with the trial of the case.

The testimony was without conflict that Sgt. Crow was not part of the Brevard County prosecution team of Dean Moxley. Moxley testified that Crow did no investigation for Moxley and that the Scharf homicide was a Brevard County case from the date on which her remains were found, January 19, 1974, until conclusion of the second trial of Stano in Brevard County in December of 1983 for her murder. Moxley testified that Crow was not under Moxley’s authority or control and that Crow had no role in developing Moxley’s case for trial.

The initial contact of Crow by Ecker concerning the possibility of jointly writing a book in the future was only that, an initial overture to discuss the possibility of a future joint effort. Crow did not talk to Ecker’s agent, had no literary agent himself, and did not authorize Ecker to discuss the possibility of a book with Ecker’s agent.

Crow did not enter any agreement with Ecker, and the idea of a joint book was not further pursued by Crow past this initial overture. Ecker’s inquiry had no effect on the way Crow investigated Stano’s crimes. The initial solicitation of Crow by Ecker was rejected after Crow determined that Ecker’s work was inaccurate, sensational and glamorized.

While Terrell Ecker did not appear to know about Crow’s evaluation of Ecker’s work, his testimony basically echoes that given by Crow. Ecker stated that he discussed writing a book with Crow after Stano had entered a guilty plea to the six Volusia County murders and he thought the cases involving Stano were over. Ecker testified that neither he nor Crow would be comfortable writing a book about an ongoing case.

Ecker further testified that it was his intent to write a book with or without Crow, and that he had solicited Crow’s input because he felt Crow would add “color” to Ecker’s book. Ecker did not testify to any additional contact with Crow after Ecker’s initial overture to Crow, although Ecker did confer with his literary agent about a possible book. Ecker did not pursue the book concept further for himself or anyone else after his brain aneurysm.

This contact by Mr. Ecker concerning the possibilities of writing a book in the future was the only one Crow did not immediately reject.

When he testified before the Court in 1992, Paul Crow stated that he still thought from time to time about writing a book, although he has not taken any steps to make this idea come to fruition and has not prepared for publishing, or published, anything, either directly or indirectly, alone or with anyone else, concerning Stano.

While Crow testified that there was a great deal of office talk about the potential of writing a book and that many people told him “You should write a book-you’ll get rich!”, he took no steps to author a book from the time he first met Stano to the present date. His brief conversation with Mr. Ecker about the potential of writing a book together was quickly dispelled by Crow’s own decision concerning the inappropriateness of Ecker’s style, and in any event was a contemplation which was not to be pursued until Crow’s work investigating the crimes of Mr. Stano had been concluded. This brief discussion was not pursued further.

Crow’s consideration of the idea of writing a book sometime in the future has remained the contemplation of a person who finds himself, because of unique historical events, in a position to make a scholarly contribution to law enforcement at some appropriate time in the future. That time has not yet arrived. There is no evidence that this thought had any impact whatsoever on Crow’s investigation of Stano.

Crow did not discuss writing a book with Mr. Morrison or Mr. Eugene Stano, Petitioner’s father. Further, he never heard that Don Jacobson was writing a book and did not discuss writing a book with Don Jacobson.

From the evidence presented, the Court finds that Crow did not discuss jointly writing a book with Stano or intend that he and Stano would share in the proceeds of a book. The Court finds that Paul Crow did not state to anyone that “the more confessions Stano made, the better Crow’s book would be” or words to like effect. Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary are without merit.

(7) INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF STANO FOR THE MURDER OF CATHY LEE SCHARF

During Stano’s confessions on March 12, 1981 as part of his plea agreement with the State Attorney in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, and as noted earlier while Stano was trying to piece together his route in the Jane Doe murder where the victim was left in the median of an interstate highway, Stano mentioned facts concerning his route which appeared to be inconsistent with the information Crow had ascertained as to the six homicides under investigation in Volusia County.

Shortly after March 12, 1981, Crow called Captain DeWitt of the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department to ask if he had any information concerning a homicide from the sparse facts that Stano had related. Crow did not have a name of a victim. Captain DeWitt stated he recalled nothing about any homicide victim in Brevard County which might be consistent with such facts.

Sometime later, Crow asked Kathy Kelly, a reporter with the local newspaper in Daytona Beach, if she had heard of any case that might fit the information. Kelly researched the matter and sent Crow a copy of an October 6, 1977 news article. Crow then wrote the State Attorney for Brevard County, Douglas Cheshire, Jr., in the hope that his office would commence an investigation, since Crow felt there had been a lack of response from the Sheriff’s office.

Approximately two months later, in April or May of 1981, an Assistant State Attorney from Brevard County called and told Crow that they would be in touch with him in the future. Thereafter, Lt. James Bollick of the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department called Crow to advise that Detective Johnny L. Manis of his office would be investigating the case. to say, but not to question him about the Scharf case. Some time elapsed, and when Crow was not contacted, Crow then wrote Manis a letter dated November 20, 1981, some seven to eight months after Crow had originally called Captain DeWitt. (Petitioner’s 34).

Manis stated that he talked to Crow by telephone after receiving Crow’s letter. However, up to December of 1981, Manis testified he did not do much work on the Scharf case except to talk to Crow by telephone. While Manis testified that during a telephone conversation with Crow in November or December of 1981, Crow advised that he had been given some information by Stano, Crow did not state he had a confession from Stano as to this murder.

On January 20, 1982, Manis went to the Florida State Prison with Mr. Bollick to talk to Stano. Manis introduced himself and talked to Stano for approximately two hours after first advising Stano of his rights. Manis testified that he and Stano talked about many things, ranging from putting in a sprinkler system to the Scharf case. Manis was attempting to build his own rapport with Stano and intended to see Stano again. Since Manis was the homicide investigator in the jurisdiction charged with prosecuting the case, Manis did not invite Crow to join him.

In the course of this interview, Stano told Manis that he did not recall any crimes in Brevard County and did not recall telling Crow about any. Manis testified that Stano did not deny the crime. According to Manis’ testimony, Stano basically stated that he did not remember the incident, and the bottom line was that Stano did not admit to committing the murder.

When Manis returned to Brevard County, he contacted Sgt. Crow and told him that Stano had not admitted to the murder of a victim found in Brevard County. Crow responded that Stano would only talk to persons if he liked them and stated that he, Crow, would try to get back over to talk to Stano at sometime in the future at the Florida State Prison.

Between January 20, 1982 and April 23, 1982, Manis talked to Crow by telephone approximately two to three times. Manis noted that Crow was extremely busy. During one of these telephone calls to Crow, Manis told Crow that he wanted to go to Florida State Prison again to interview Stano with reference to two murder victims, Sandra Dubose and Cathy Lee Scharf. Manis testified that he requested that Crow ask Stano if Stano would talk to Manis because Manis felt Crow had rapport with Stano.

Thereafter, Crow drove to the prison, and Manis flew there with his supervisor, Mr. Bollick. Because Manis was late in arriving at the Florida State Prison, he met Crow as Crow was leaving the prison. Crow advised Manis that Stano insisted on being transported back to Volusia County before Stano would talk further to anyone about any crime. Crow advised Manis that he was going to try to obtain authority to have Stano transported back to Daytona Beach and that he would let Manis know if that could be accomplished.

Pursuant to an order of the state court, Stano was returned from the Florida State Prison in Starke to the Daytona Beach jail during the week of August 10, 1982 (Petitioner’s 38). Since the Daytona Beach jail is not a maximum security facility and since many jurisdictions were seeking to have their representatives question Stano, a procedure to route all requests for interviews of Stano through Crow was devised for security as well as for the protection of Stano. After conferring with Crow by telephone, Manis advised Crow that he would be coming to the Daytona Beach jail on August 11, 1982.

Manis testified that he had been keeping Dean Moxley, the assistant prosecuting attorney in Brevard County within the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, advised of his actions and that Moxley had suggested that Manis try to talk to Stano again. Therefore Manis drove to the Daytona Beach Police Department where he spent four to five minutes with Crow in Crow’s office.

Manis stated that he originally went there to see when he could talk to Stano, and when he arrived Crow stated that Manis could talk to Stano “right now”. Manis testified he was caught by surprise because he did not have a tape recorder, his file on the case, or even a brief case and was not prepared to talk to Stano. Nevertheless, he followed Crow to an interview room where Stano was waiting, and Crow introduced Manis to Stano. Crow gave Stano his Miranda rights, and Stano filled out the waiver form in the presence of Manis.

Crow then asked Stano if he remembered Manis, and Stano responded “Yes”. Crow left to get coffee for Manis and Stano and came back in two to three minutes. Crow asked Manis and Stano if they wanted anything else. Stano answered that he would like to go for a jog, and everyone laughed. Manis then began his interview, and Crow stood there for a few minutes before he left Manis and Stano alone for the interview. Manis alone asked Stano questions. Stano discussed both the Scharf and the Dubose murders with Manis. After the interview, Manis returned to Brevard County.

Manis returned from Brevard County to Crow’s office at the Daytona Beach Police Department the next day on August 12, 1982 and told Crow that he wanted to record Stano’s testimony. Crow advised Manis that several other agents were waiting to interview Stano and that Stano was fairly booked for the day. Nevertheless, Crow eventually took Manis to the interview room where Stano was waiting.

At this interview, Manis had his Scharf file, his tape recorder, his Dubose file, and a waiver of rights form. Manis read the Miranda rights to Stano. Stano waived his rights. This is also reflected in the recording of this interview. Petitioner’s 149. Manis conducted the interview, and Crow came in and out of the room during the interview from time to time. Crow was not there for all of the interview, nor did he ask Stano any questions during the interview.

Manis identified as a true and correct transcript of Stano’s confession on August 12, 1982, an exhibit marked Respondent’s 30. This Court noted, without satisfactory explanation from counsel, that in the transcript of this interview which was provided to the appellate court in Petitioner’s appendix and which was admitted into the record before this Court as Respondent’s 31, that the name of Manis as the questioner in the original transcript has been eliminated and the name of Paul Crow has been inserted as the questioner in the place of Mr. Manis. Thus, it appears that someone has tampered with this document presented to both this court and the appellate court.

The evidence is undisputed that Paul Crow did not participate by asking questions in either interview of Stano on August 11, 1982 or August 12, 1982, and that during the taped confession and interview of Stano on August 12, 1982, Manis is the only person who asked Stano questions. (Respondent’s 149). While Crow was present very briefly during the interviews on both dates, Manis was the person conducting the questioning.

During the interview on August 12, 1982, Manis took a statement from Stano concerning the Scharf murder first and then a statement concerning the Dubose murder next. (Petitioner’s 189). The information provided by Stano concerning these confessions was given by Manis to John Dean Moxley, Jr., the Assistant State Attorney in charge of prosecuting the first degree murder cases of Scharf in Brevard County and of Dubose in Seminole County for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit.

From a second point of view, Dean Moxley testified that he was involved in two prosecutions of Gerald Stano involving jury trials, the Scharf case prosecution in September of 1983 which resulted in a mistrial and the Scharf case prosecution in December of 1988 which is the subject of the instant case.

Sometime in 1982, Manis talked to Moxley about the letter from Crow implicating Stano in a murder in Brevard County. In April of 1982, Moxley had Crow’s letter, the information from Manis and Bollick concerning their visit to the Florida State Prison when Stano stated he did not recall the Scharf incident, and certain crime scene facts that appeared to fit facts that Stano had given to Crow. Moxley decided to present the case to the grand jury in 1982 to encourage the Brevard County Sheriff to spend more time and effort investigating the case.

Moxley felt that there was probable cause to indict Stano, but there was sentiment in Brevard County that since Stano was subject to incarceration for life as a result of the Volusia County cases, additional effort should not be devoted to his prosecution for a murder in Brevard County. Therefore, the presentation of information to the initial grand jury by Moxley was designed to learn if the grand jury would recommend further investigation of the case. The grand jury did recommend that the Sheriff further investigate the case.

In March of 1983, Moxley made a second presentation to the Brevard County grand jury. This time he presented as witnesses officers Crow, Hudson, Manis, and Kendrick and his Brevard County State’s Attorney investigator, George Dirshka. The grand jury issued an indictment as to Stano for the murder of Ms. Scharf.

Moxley testified concerning the extensive investigation that he conducted himself and directed others to conduct with reference to the prosecution of the Scharf case. For instance, he interviewed witnesses, attended two depositions of Paul Crow, and talked to many witnesses in the Maher case because he felt that it involved similar fact evidence under the Williams Rule. Moxley also sent investigators to other jurisdictions to examine their files in an effort to gain other similar fact evidence.

In addition, Moxley personally compared the facts contained in the confession of Stano to Manis with the crime scene and the route which Stano stated to Manis that he had taken. Moxley determined that the description of the body being covered with palm fronds was consistent with the several palm fronds placed on top of Scharf’s body when she was found.

Stano’s statement concerning her Indian jewelry matched the ring with the Indian head that she was wearing when her body was found. Stano’s statement concerning Scharf’s clothing, her age, and her general description matched that of the victim.

Further, Moxley determined that Stano’s statement of the circumstances of his travel and the route that he took were consistent with the details of the murder. Moxley personally drove the route given by Stano. Stano mentioned an orange grove and a canal which Moxley located as Stano had described them.

In addition, since the time of the murder, the Kennedy Space Center Preserve had been established, and the highway, which formerly had been called “A1A” in 1974 at the time of the murder, was designated State Road 3 at the Kennedy Space Center in 1983 at the time Moxley drove the route.

Moxley therefore obtained an old map of the area in order to check the facts concerning the route given by Stano. Moxley found that the route given by Stano in his confession in 1982 to Manis was consistent with the facts of the route as they existed in 1974 at the time of the murder although the demarcations along the route in 1983 had been renamed.

Moxley utilized Crow as a fact witness at some proceedings which he handled in Brevard County incident to the Scharf case. At Moxley’s request, as noted above, Crow testified before the second Brevard County grand jury which issued the indictment of Stano in the Scharf case. Crow was also subpoenaed to testify in both trials and was deposed.

While Moxley used the statement that Stano made to Crow in March of 1981 in each trial, Moxley testified that without the confessions made on August 11 and August 12, 1982 by Stano to Manis, he would not prosecute the case because, while he had probable cause for the issuance of an indictment, he did not feel that he would have proof beyond a reasonable doubt with only the statement of Stano to Crow.

Moxley stated that the confessions of Stano to Manis on August 11 and August 12, 1982 were the most important confessions in his prosecution of Stano for the Scharf murder. Moxley testified that he did not consider the statement to Crow made by Stano in March of 1981 as the “lynch pin” of his case.

Moxley had no information that Stano had been promised life imprisonment for revealing the Scharf murder, and at no time did he have to go through Paul Crow to talk to Stano. Further on two occasions Stano himself confessed to Moxley that he had murdered Scharf and Dubose and offered to plead guilty to both murders in exchange for a promise of life imprisonment.

(8) RELATIONSHIP OF CROW AND GADBERRY

The Court has been troubled with the fact that Officer Gadberry, who took credit for solving the Mary Carol Maher murder in April of 1980, did not indicate his view that Stano did not know the facts of the crime or his concern that Stano had been fed information by Crow or that Stano was factually innocent of this crime until several years later. It therefore appears that a statement of facts on the relationship between Crow and Gadberry should be made.

Paul B. Crow, now Chief of the Daytona Beach Police Department, began in 1966 as a patrolman with this law enforcement agency. At the time of the initial confession by Stano in April of 1980, Crow was a sergeant in the Daytona Beach Police Department, was Gadberry’s supervisor on the Detective Bureau, and reported to Captain Powers.

When Officer James W. Gadberry, Jr. was asked on the witness stand whether Crow was his supervisor at the Detective Bureau at the Daytona Beach Police Department during 1980, Gadberry bristled and answered that Crow was his “unwritten” supervisor. However, both Captain Powers and Crow testified readily when asked the same question that Crow was Gadberry’s supervisor and the person to whom Gadberry reported.

From further evidence it appears that during the 1980’s Gadberry had been reprimanded by Crow and subsequently demoted from detective to patrolman. Captain Powers had charged Sergeant Crow with the responsibility of monitoring case control systems within the police department. Crow stated that during this time he found over 100 of Gadberry’s assigned cases had not been investigated by the department’s required due date and had not been worked for nine to ten months.

Crow had a conference with Gadberry and gave the latter two weeks to comply with the police department’s procedures. After this deadline had passed, Crow reviewed Gadberry’s work and found that some of the cases still had not been investigated. When he questioned Gadberry concerning these cases, Gadberry responded that he had been on vacation and had not been able to get to them. Crow investigated and found that Gadberry had not been on vacation and further found that Gadberry had left cases unattended in his desk. Crow reported the incident to Captain Powers.

In addition, at approximately the same time, Gadberry was deemed to have improperly handled the investigation of the death of a well-known sports figure, Lewis McSwain, and Crow was assigned to complete this investigation. As a result of these events, Captain Powers suspended Gadberry for one day and transferred Gadberry out of the Detective Bureau, placing him back in the patrol division.

Gadberry resigned from the Daytona Beach Police Department in September of 1982 to become the youth director of a church in Kentucky. He was rehired as a patrolman at the Daytona Beach Police Department in June of 1983, a position which he now holds. Patrolman is viewed as a step below the detective division within the Daytona Beach Police Department.

Gadberry had also been criticized for his investigation in the Donna Hensley case. The police report reflects that Hensley defended herself against Stano, received puncture wounds with a can opener and stab wounds with a knife, and that Stano tried to pour muriatic acid on her. Gadberry noted on the Hensley report that Hensley had “superficial wounds”. (Petitioner’s 148)

When Lt. John N. Power and his partner Officer O’Brien saw Hensley in the course of their duties for the Daytona Beach Police Department, she showed them her wounds which were still oozing. They also learned in this conversation that the suspect’s car, license tag and description were available to the police. These police officers then went back to the police station and contacted Gadberry to discuss the case.

After determining that Gadberry was not going to take appropriate action in the case, the police officers made a request to their supervisor, Sgt. Crow, that if Gadberry was not going to conduct the investigation into the Hensley case that they wished to be assigned the Hensley case to complete the investigation. As a result of their complaint, Crow talked to Gadberry about the Hensley case. Shortly thereafter, Gadberry had Stano arrested on April 1, 1980 and brought into the Daytona Beach Police Department where Stano made his first confession as noted earlier.

Captain Powers observed that while Gadberry did not appear to be resentful when Powers initially directed Crow to enter the interview room with Gadberry to question Stano on April 1, 1980, and thereafter when Powers ordered both officers to accompany each other with two backup officers and Stano to see if Stano could locate the site where the Maher body had been found, Powers noticed that Gadberry became resentful toward Crow when the rumors began to flow in the Daytona Beach Police Department that Crow would be writing a book about this experience.

Further, while Gadberry testified that he was not for or against the death penalty, that it did not contradict his religious beliefs, and that he held no strong views one way or the other, Captain Powers testified that Gadberry had told Powers that Gadberry was definitely opposed to the death penalty.

Finally, Dean Moxley testified that on July 29, 1983 he interviewed Gadberry about the Hensley and Maher cases in the course of his trial preparation for the prosecution of Stano in the Scharf murder. Gadberry did not make any statement to Moxley to the effect that Stano was innocent, or that he questioned Crow’s interview techniques, or that Crow had led Stano to the place where Mary Carol Maher’s body had been found. Moxley further testified that Gadberry told him during this interview that the odor of Mary Carol Maher’s body was still at the site when Gadberry and Crow visited it with Stano. Gadberry, in contrast, denied that he had ever been contacted by Moxley.

While some of these statements are not material to the issues in this case, they reflect that Gadberry’s testimony conflicts in part with the testimony of several witnesses and further help to explain why Gadberry has given evidence which is in conflict with the testimony of other witnesses.

In any event, as knowledgeable and experienced police investigators testified during the evidentiary hearing before the Court, most suspects do not tell the truth the first time they are interrogated. Giving a suspect some information is a proper interrogation technique. It is not inappropriate to tell a suspect details to refresh the suspect’s memory, particularly if he is confessing to many crimes, because details of a crime to a suspect can run together.

It is the finding of this Court after listening to the evidence and observing the demeanor of the witnesses, that Sgt. Crow did not feed information to Stano and thus cause Stano to confess to crimes which he did not commit as contended by Officer Gadberry.

(9) THE PROSECUTION TEAM

The concurring opinion on remand requests a determination whether Detective Paul Crow was “part of the prosecution team in the Scharf case” and whether he acted under the authority of the Brevard County Prosecutor, Dean Moxley. Since this Court has found that there was no collusion or coercion as alleged by Stano, the issue whether Paul Crow of the Daytona Beach Police Department in Volusia County was part of the prosecution team in a jurisdiction outside his own, that of Brevard County, may not be necessary to this opinion. However, since evidence was presented in this trial court on the issue, and the appellate court has indicated its interest, the Court enters its findings of fact as follows.

After Stano acknowledged his responsibility to the six murders within the jurisdiction of Volusia County and entered his plea of guilty in September of 1981, Stano went to prison, and the Volusia County cases were concluded. However, Stano continued to call and write a variety of persons, including but not limited to his former attorney Donald Jacobson, Kathy Kelly and Paul Crow.

Donald Jacobson cautioned Stano both before and after the conclusion of the six murder cases in Volusia County that his agreement concerning confessing to murders in Volusia County in exchange for life imprisonment had ended on September 2, 1981 when he entered his plea of guilty, and that he should not confess to any other murders unless he first received immunity. Jacobson knew, because of Stano’s confessions to him and from his own investigation, that Stano was responsible for the murders of more than the six women in Volusia County.

The murders to which Stano confessed and the factual circumstances of each often involved different law enforcement agencies and their investigations. It is the custom among law enforcement agencies that the agency which has jurisdiction over the territory where the body of a homicide victim is found will take jurisdiction of the case for purposes of prosecution.

However, when a victim resides in and is reported missing in one jurisdiction, and the body is found within the jurisdiction of another agency, it is a common practice for the jurisdiction having responsibility for the prosecution of the murder, i.e. the jurisdiction where the body is found, to request information from other jurisdictions in the course of gathering facts and evidence concerning the case. This is for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is to save the cost and expense of sending investigators from one jurisdiction into another jurisdiction to do work which could be easily accomplished by the jurisdiction receiving the request for information.

Therefore, if one jurisdiction is asked for information from another jurisdiction, the second jurisdiction will try to provide the information to the requesting agency. This does not necessarily make the investigation joint. The jurisdiction receiving the request is obtaining evidence or information in a specifically designated sphere, even though if assistance is provided to the requesting jurisdiction, persons from that other agency may be required to testify as to what was done by them when the requesting agency proceeds with the trial of the case.

The testimony was without conflict that Sgt. Crow was not part of the Brevard County prosecution team of Dean Moxley. Moxley testified that Crow did no investigation for Moxley and that the Scharf homicide was a Brevard County case from the date on which her remains were found, January 19, 1974, until conclusion of the second trial of Stano in Brevard County in December of 1983 for her murder. Moxley testified that Crow was not under Moxley’s authority or control and that Crow had no role in developing Moxley’s case for trial.

Moxley requested information from Crow as well as from many other persons, and he specifically kept his investigation and trial preparation with reference to the charges against Stano for the murder of Cathy Scharf “self-contained”. There was no jurisdictional overlap between Brevard County and either Volusia County or the Daytona Beach Police Department with reference to control or direction of the Scharf investigation. While Moxley asked Volusia County and the Daytona Beach Police Department for information, including copies of records and witness interviews, Sgt. Crow was used by Moxley solely as a fact witness and as a source of information on other cases.

Evidence was presented on the history of the Scharf murder investigation. James A. McDonald, Jr. was the Brevard County Sheriff’s Deputy called to the scene in 1974 where hunters found the body of Scharf on the Cape Kennedy Preserve inside the Brevard County line. At the time he was not aware of a missing person’s report on Scharf in Volusia County.

He undertook the investigation of the murder of this young female, including but not limited to background research, interview of witnesses, investigation of her clothing and jewelry, and investigation of missing person’s reports. He was able to identify the victim as Cathy Lee Scharf who lived in Volusia County, and McDonald contacted Lt. Ouellette of the Daytona Beach Police Department to request that representatives of this agency go the last places where Scharf had been seen and also talk to her associates to obtain any information concerning the victim.

Ouellette directed Detective Susan Nix and one or two others under his supervision in the Daytona Beach Police Department to obtain this information for McDonald. McDonald testified that Nix was not an active investigator for him. He had several telephone conversations with Detective Nix, and she as well as others from the Daytona Beach Police Department helped him gather information. However, Lt. Ouellette was McDonald’s primary contact at the Daytona Beach Police Department and the person with whom McDonald spoke the most at that agency.

McDonald stated that in this early stage of the investigation, the Scharf case was not considered a joint investigation between Brevard County and the Daytona Beach Police Department. The case was always a Brevard County Sheriff’s case and never a joint investigation with any other agency.

In the course of attempting to gain more information concerning the Scharf murder, McDonald had his Brevard County Sheriff’s crime lab make an intelligence bulletin. The crime lab had no authority to determine if an investigation was joint or not. This intelligence report was a way to seek information concerning the victim, and the intelligence reports were sent to any jurisdictions that might possibly have information on the victim.

When a bulletin was sent to another agency, the crime lab automatically listed in the bulletin the name of the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department and the agency to whom it was sending the bulletin as well. Thus one bulletin could be sent to many jurisdictions which might have contact with the victim, and the crime lab would caption the bulletin with the name of the Brevard County Sheriff and the name of the jurisdiction receiving the bulletin. The crime lab would insert the name of the agency to whom it was sending the bulletin so that the bulletin would be posted in that agency’s offices to solicit information.

After the Scharf murder was not resolved in 1974 and 1975, the case lay dormant, and little if any further activity with reference to it occurred until Johnny Manis reactivated the investigation of the Scharf murder as a follow up to Sgt. Crow’s inquiry in 1981 concerning a murder victim in Brevard County. Manis, then a Detective with the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department, testified that Sgt. Crow had no responsibility to gather evidence in the Scharf case and that there was no jurisdictional overlap between Brevard and Volusia Counties.

Since the Scharf body was found in Brevard County, that agency had jurisdiction of the investigation of the Scharf murder. Manis testified that he did not give Sgt. Crow any information that Crow could use to question Stano concerning Scharf and that the only thing Sgt. Crow told Manis on how to question Stano was that if Stano did not like the interviewer, Stano would not talk to him.

The procedures utilized by Dean Moxley and Detective Manis in investigating the Scharf case are not unlike the procedures followed in the investigation of other victims whose bodies were found in jurisdictions outside of the Daytona Beach Police Department. introduced Denton to Stano and then left the interview. Stano then gave a confession concerning this Bradford County murder which Denton taped. (Respondent’s 32 and 33; Court’s Exhibit 1; Petitioner’s 187).

Denton testified that Stano gave new information which Denton did not have from his previous investigation of this murder and which Sgt. Crow had not been told. Denton stated that at no time did Crow deny access to Stano. Stano never stated that he would not talk to Denton without Crow, and Stano talked freely. Denton testified that his agency, and not the Daytona Beach Police Department, was the agency with the jurisdiction to investigate the murder of the victim found in Bradford County.

Further, Denton and other Bradford County law enforcement representatives set up an interview with Stano on August 23, 1982 at the Volusia County courthouse without the assistance of Crow, during which Stano again freely confessed to this murder. Respondent’s 33. Crow acted in large part as a conduit or channel of information to other agencies because the Daytona Beach Police Department did not have the personnel or the resources to conduct investigations of murders in multiple jurisdictions outside its own jurisdiction.

While Crow did investigate the murders committed within the jurisdiction of his own Daytona Beach Police Department and to some extent assisted the investigation of murders within the jurisdiction of the Volusia County Sheriff’s Department, Crow primarily passed along pieces of information Stano gave to other agencies and would try to encourage Stano to talk to representatives of other agencies about crimes in their respective jurisdictions. knowledgeably than Crow. In this deposition Crow describes the number of homicides which Stano admitted committing ( Id. at p. 14-15), how Stano did not “rubber stamp” confessions to homicides ( Id. at p. 12), and how Stano had difficulty communicating with some people ( Id. ).

Crow also gave an overview of how Stano might become confused as to the route he took or the year because of the number of murders. However, he noted Stano was usually very accurate as to clothing, jewelry, dialogue, location, and how the murder was effected. For instance, Stano confessed to the murder of two girls in Gainesville and was very accurate as to location, clothing and the means of the murder but was in error as to the year. ( Id. at p. 23; see also id. at p. 30).

With reference to the questions posed in the concurring opinion as to the “prosecution team”, the Court finds as follows:

1. There was no collusion between Crow, Jacobson and McMillan, and therefore by implication, and by his direct testimony, Moxley was unaware of any collusion.

2. Crow did not work for Moxley.

3. Crow was not under the control or authority of Moxley.

4. Crow had no significant role in developing the Scharf murder case for trial once he informed Manis of Stano’s statement concerning a victim in Brevard County.

While as to the six murders in Volusia County which were part of Stano’s plea agreement it could be said that there was a jurisdictional overlap and that Paul Crow was a member of Larry Nixon’s prosecution team for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, these cases are distinguishable from the prosecution of Stano for the murder of Cathy Lee Scharf in a separate jurisdiction, Brevard County.

In the Volusia County cases, Sgt. Crow of the Daytona Beach Police Department was responsible for the Maher murder investigation, Detective Lehman of the Volusia County Sheriff’s Department was responsible for the Toni Vann Haddocks’ murder investigation, and Detective Hudson of the Volusia County Sheriff’s Department was responsible for the murder investigations of Heard, Hamilton, Doe and Neal and also the Haddocks case when Lehman left the Sheriff’s office.

Nevertheless, Larry Nixon headed the prosecution team within the Seventh Judicial Circuit as to these six murders, and Sgt. Crow obtained information concerning these murders from Stano and others. Don Jacobson, Stano’s attorney in these Volusia County cases, testified that he concurred that Sgt. Crow should be designated as the person to obtain information concerning these murders in Volusia County after Stano had been given immunity and a promise of life imprisonment in exchange for his plea of guilty to the murders of those victims whose bodies were disinterred in the Seventh Judicial Circuit as a result of the information Stano provided.

BRADY CLAIM
B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Eleventh Circuit remanded this claim to this Court for an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts with respect to whether the alleged evidence of collusion and coercion was suppressed by the prosecution. From the factual findings of the Court discussed above, Stano’s Brady claim must fail.

A Brady violation occurs under the following circumstances: (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence suppressed was favorable to the defendant or exculpatory; and (3) the evidence suppressed was material to the issues at trial. United States v. Burroughs, 830 F.2d 1574, 1577-1578 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 1243, 99 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988). In the instant case, as discussed above, there was no collusion between Crow, Jacobson and McMillan. Not only was there no collusion, but also Moxley, by implication and by his own direct testimony, was unaware of any collusion.

Additionally, there was no coercion imposed by Crow, Jacobson, or McMillan, together or individually, on Stano with regard to the confessions, and the confessions were not tainted. The Court finds that there was no evidence of collusion or of coercion that could have been suppressed by the prosecution. Since the Court is unable to conclude that there was any evidence suppressed by the prosecution, there was no Brady violation.

Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit has determined that ” Brady and its progeny apply to evidence possessed by a district’s prosecution team, which includes both investigative and prosecutorial personnel. Brady, then, applies only to information possessed by the prosecutor or anyone over whom he has authority.” United States v. Meros, 866 F.2d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 932 , 110 S.Ct. 322, 107 L.Ed.2d 312 (1989) (citation omitted) (quotation omitted). Crow did not work for and was not under the control or authority of Moxley and was not otherwise answerable to Moxley. Crow did not have a significant role in developing the Scharf murder case for trial once he informed Manis of Stano’s statement with regard to a victim in Brevard County.

Therefore, Crow was not an agent of Moxley. In the event that there was any evidence favorable to Stano’s contentions with regard to Crow’s activities, such evidence was not, as required by Brady, in the possession of the prosecution. Crow’s knowledge was not imputable to Moxley. Hence, Crow was not a part or a member of the “prosecution team” in the Scharf case, and Brady is not applicable. See Meros, 866 F.2d at 1309.

In the present case, there has been no violation of Brady since the Court finds that there was no collusion or coercion between, by, or among Crow, McMillan, and Jacobson and that Crow was not a part of the prosecution team. The evidence presented by Stano on the Brady claim is insufficient to support habeas relief.

II. HENRY CLAIM
A. FINDINGS OF FACT
In April of 1983, the State Attorney’s office for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida was advised that Clarence Zacke would agree to plead guilty to a charge of the second degree murder of Richard Lee Hunt and to assist the State in the prosecution of his co-defendants charged with this murder.

On April 15, 1983, the State Attorney, Mr. Douglas Cheshire, Jr., and others traveled to Florida State Prison to interview Zacke about becoming a witness in the Hunt murder case. Zacke indicated to Cheshire that he wanted his classification changed and a reduction in his sentence.

After discussion, Cheshire, Joe Mitchell, Zacke’s attorney, and Zacke agreed that Zacke would enter a plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the second degree of Richard Lee Hunt and receive a sixty year sentence of incarceration instead of the death penalty on this charge. In addition Zacke would receive a reduction to sixty years of incarceration on the sentence he was currently serving for other crimes, all sentences to be served concurrently. Zacke also agreed to testify against his co-defendants in the Hunt case.

On April 26, 1983, Mr. Dean Moxley, as Assistant State Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, interviewed Clarence Zacke at Florida State Prison. Only the case involving Richard Lee Hunt was discussed at this time, and nothing was discussed which related in any manner to Gerald Eugene Stano. Zacke agreed to enter the plea agreement described above and was polygraphed subsequently at the Florida State Prison at the direction of Moxley. When Moxley interviewed Zacke on April 26, 1983 at the Florida State Prison, a tape recording of this conversation was made and became part of the plea agreement in the Richard Lee Hunt case.

Thereafter, Zacke was returned from Florida State Prison to the Brevard County jail and put in an isolation cell called the “shower cell”. Zacke testified that he did not ask for this cell and that he did not know why he was put there. However, it was the same cell in which he had been placed when he was previously in the Brevard County jail. Stano was also in the Brevard County jail during this time although not in Zacke’s cell.

Zacke testified that he was in the Brevard County jail for approximately three to five months and was returned to the Florida State Prison before Christmas of 1983. Zacke entered his guilty plea to the murder of Richard Lee Hunt on May 13, 1983 and was sentenced in October of 1983 in that case. During the time that he was in the Brevard County jail, he was in the exercise yard approximately five times.

There is no evidence that there was any promise from Moxley or anyone else to Zacke of leniency in exchange for his testimony or information about crimes other than the murder of Richard Lee Hunt until the telephone call from Joe Mitchell, Zacke’s attorney, to Moxley in the fall of 1983 described below. Until then Moxley’s promises to Zacke related solely to the Hunt murder case and are embodied in the plea agreement and transcript of the interview. There is no evidence that Zacke was directed by Moxley or Cheshire or any person to get statements for the state from Stano or from any other inmate.

Further, Moxley did not direct that Zacke and Stano be put close together in the jail. When Stano was moved from the Brevard County jail and transported to the Seminole County jail on May 12, 1983 in response to an order of the state court, Moxley requested that Zacke be moved to the shower cell for his security “when Stano is moved”, meaning when Stano was taken to the Seminole County jail. Respondent’s 34.

After Zacke entered his plea of guilty in the Hunt case in Brevard County on May 13, 1983, Zacke was moved into the shower cell at the Brevard County jail. Stano was in the Seminole County jail during this time. At the time of this move, there had been no conversation between Zacke and Moxley about Mr. Stano.

On July 14, 1983, Stano’s counsel caused Stano to be transferred back to the Brevard County jail from the Seminole County jail, and in this month Mr. Stano and Mr. Zacke had the conversation in the exercise yard during which Stano confessed to committing the murder of Cathy Lee Scharf. Stano’s second trial in the Scharf case.

Initially, Zacke did not tell anyone about Stano’s confession to him because Zacke thought Stano would be convicted. After Stano’s first trial resulted in a mistrial in September of 1983, Zacke told his attorney, Joe Mitchell, about Stano’s confession. Mitchell then contacted Moxley to advise him that Zacke had information concerning Stano.

Moxley testified that he was completely surprised by Joe Mitchell’s contact and the information he related. Moxley thereafter had Zacke polygraphed, and when the results showed that Zacke was being “non-deceptive”, Moxley decided to talk to him.

Zacke advised Moxley of the confession of Stano to Zacke at the exercise yard and asked to be moved from Florida State Prison and to receive the return of his seized truck. Moxley interviewed Zacke again shortly before the second trial of Stano and found Zacke’s statement of the exercise yard confession by Stano to be the same on this subsequent interview as it had been on Moxley’s previous interview of Zacke.

Zacke testified that he provided the information to the authorities concerning Stano’s confession on his own volition. Both he and Moxley testified that no one had told, suggested or advised Zacke to go back into the jail and get more information. Neither Moxley nor anyone on his behalf directed Zacke to obtain statements from Stano. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

The testimony of Marlene Mitchell Alba concerning jail house sweeps in Brevard County, the affidavits of Curtis Davis, Sr. and Johnny Jim Mallory to the effect that snitches were used by Brevard County authorities (Petitioner’s 200 and 209), and the testimony of Melvin Shackleford, Marvin Glen Cook and Lawrence Litus about rumors as to who was a “snitch” in the jail do not constitute proof of Stano’s contention that Zacke had been promised leniency in exchange for testimony about other murders or that Zacke had been placed in proximity to Stano to obtain additional information for the prosecutor. None of these witnesses had any evidence concerning Mr. Zacke or Mr. Stano which supported Petitioner’s contention that Zacke was a government agent.

Further, the Court finds that the testimony of William Van Poyck, an inmate on death row with Stano who had been asked by Stano to help him in this case, lacks credibility and is of questionable relevancy. In any event, Van Poyck testified that Zacke never stated that he was acting as a government agent or that a person acting on behalf of the state attorney asked Zacke to get more information concerning Stano.

Moxley stated that on November 14, 1983, he wrote the Supervisor of Corrections, Louis Wainwright, to ask for the transfer of Zacke (Petitioner’s 192). This was for security reasons to protect Zacke from retaliation while he was in the same prison as Stano. On December 12, 1983 he again wrote the Department of Corrections to request transfer of Zacke to another prison to prevent retaliation. (Petitioner’s 193).

On October 3, 1984, Zacke’s attorney, J. Robert Cooper, wrote the Parole Commission to ask for a hearing in December because he had requested Moxley to testify and relate the fact that Zacke had testified in two cases and had given important cooperation (Petitioner’s 194). However, this letter to the Parole Commission was not written pursuant to any promise Moxley made to Zacke.

After Stano’s second state court trial, Cooper asked Moxley to make a statement to the parole commission. Moxley testified did not see Cooper’s letter and did not promise Cooper that he would make favorable comment for Zacke. Prior to the end of Stano’s second trial, Moxley had made no promise that he would make a favorable comment to anyone on Zacke’s testimony in the Stano case.

HENRY CLAIM
B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Stano alleges that the testimony of Clarence Zacke relating to his jailhouse confession violates United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 , 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980), because the prosecutor, Dean Moxley, promised leniency to Zacke in exchange for testimony about other murders and because Moxley directed that Zacke and Stano be placed in proximity to each other in the jail, thus making Zacke an agent of the state who elicited statements from Stano in violation of Henry. The evidence of record does not support these contentions, and thus the Court does not need to deal in this opinion with the issue of whether there has been procedural default.

There is no evidence that there was prearrangement for Zacke to obtain information for the authorities with reference to Stano or that he was acting in the capacity of a government agent. While Zacke confessed to his role in the murder of Richard Lee Hunt and agreed to testify against co-defendants, he had no promises of leniency except those specifically relating to the Richard Lee Hunt case, i.e. that he would receive a reduction in his current sentence from 180 years to 60 years incarceration and that he could plead guilty to second degree murder and receive a sentence of 60 years concurrent, thus eliminating the potential of the death penalty.

To establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment in a jailhouse informant case, the defendant must demonstrate that a fellow inmate was a government agent and that the inmate deliberately elicited incriminating statements from the defendant. United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 270 , 100 S.Ct. 2183, 2186-87, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980); see also Lightbourne v. Dugger, 829 F.2d 1012, 1020 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 934 , 109 S.Ct. 329, 102 L.Ed.2d 346 (1988). The primary concern is “secret interrogation by investigatory techniques that are the equivalent of direct police interrogation.” Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 459 , 106 S.Ct. 2616, 2630, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1985).

In the present case, there was no evidence that Zacke received instructions from the police, from the prosecutors, or from anyone else to do anything whatsoever concerning Stano. There was nothing in the evidence presented to the Court indicating that there was any prearrangement for Zacke to obtain anything from Stano. The Court was presented with no evidence indicating that Zacke was paid or otherwise rewarded to develop any type of relationship with Stano or to otherwise secure incriminating information.

The prosecution did not use Zacke to carry out any deliberate and surreptitious interrogation of Stano. Zacke was not promised any rewards for any information that he might provide regarding Stano. The prosecution did not request Zacke to elicit any information from Stano, and there was no presolicitation of Zacke by the prosecution to do anything of any nature concerning Stano. There simply was no evidence that Zacke was a government agent or that Zacke in any manner deliberately elicited incriminating statements from Stano.

“[A] defendant does not make out a violation of that right simply by showing that an informant, either through prior arrangement or voluntarily, reported his incriminating statements to the police. Rather, the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks.” Kuhlmann, 477 U.S. at 459 , 106 S.Ct. at 2630.

In the present case, Stano has merely shown that Zacke reported Stano’s incriminating statements to the police. However, “we should keep in mind the duty that is imposed upon all citizens to report criminal activity to the appropriate authorities…. This deeply rooted social obligation is not diminished when the witness … is involved in illicit activities himself…. [T]he criminal defendant no less that any other citizen is obliged to assist authorities.” Lightbourne, 829 F.2d at 1020 (citation omitted) (quotation omitted). There is no violation of the Sixth Amendment when ” “by luck or happenstance [ ] the State obtains incriminating statements from the accused after the right to counsel has attached.’ ” Kuhlmann, 477 U.S. at 459 , 106 S.Ct. at 2630 (quoting Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 176 , 106 S.Ct. 477, 487, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)).

“There is, by necessity, no bright-line rule for determining whether an individual is a government agent for purposes of the sixth amendment right to counsel…. At a minimum, however, there must be some evidence that an agreement, express or implied, between the individual and a government official existed at the time the elicitation takes place.” Depree v. Thomas, 946 F.2d 784, 793-794 (11th Cir.1991).

Stano has failed to show that Zacke was acting as a government agent when he elicited incriminating statements from Stano. Zacke was not paid by, nor was he acting under the instructions or solicitations of the prosecution. “[T]he protections of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel enunciated in … Henry [is] inapplicable when, after the right to counsel has attached, statements by a defendant are made to an individual who is not an agent for the Government, although he may be a Government informant. This is so regardless of whether the statements were “deliberately elicited.’ ” United States v. Taylor, 800 F.2d 1012, 1015 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 838 , 108 S.Ct. 123, 98 L.Ed.2d 81 (1987). In the instant case, Stano has not established any Sixth Amendment violation, and there is no basis for habeas relief.

III. JOHNSON vs. MISSISSIPPI CLAIM
The Eleventh Circuit has directed this Court to address the argument that Stano’s sentence should be vacated because “two of the prior convictions which were relied upon by the State in the sentencing phase were found to be invalid by a panel of this court.” See Stano v. Dugger, 901 F.2d 898, 905 (11th Cir.1990). The Eleventh Circuit was referring to its prior opinion in Stano v. Dugger, 889 F.2d 962 (11th Cir.1989), in which this Court was directed to grant Stano’s petition for writ of habeas corpus because of the determination that the state trial judge committed error in accepting Stano’s guilty plea with regard to the murders of Susan Bickrest and Mary Kathleen Muldoon.

However, in Stano v. Dugger, 897 F.2d 1067 (11th Cir.1990), the Eleventh Circuit vacated the opinion reported at 889 F.2d 962 so that the cause could be reheard by the court “in banc.” The Eleventh Circuit subsequently determined in Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125 (11th Cir.1991), that Stano had not raised a constitutionally cognizable claim under either self-representation or ineffective assistance of counsel analysis, and “all other appellate issues presented by Stano [were referred] to the original panel for resolution.” Id. at 1154. Hence, the decision of this Court to deny Stano habeas relief with respect to his Sixth Amendment claims was affirmed.

The Eleventh Circuit’s determination that the Johnson claim was still viable arose from its earlier determination that Stano’s convictions for the murders of Bickrest and Muldoon “were found to be invalid by a panel of this court.” Stano, 901 F.2d at 905. However, the opinion invalidating those convictions was subsequently vacated by the Eleventh Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit, in its opinion reported at 921 F.2d 1125, affirmed this Court’s denial of Stano’s request for habeas relief as to the convictions for the murders of Muldoon and of Bickrest; therefore, this Court does not need to address the argument on the Johnson claim since the convictions for the murders of Muldoon and of Bickrest remain valid.

Therefore, this Court finds the Petitioner’s claims to be without merit, including contentions which may not be specifically addressed in this opinion.

DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this 10th day of June, 1992.

PATRICIA C. FAWSETT

United States District Court

APPENDIX B
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Gerald Eugene Stano, Petitioner,

v.
Robert A. Butterworth, et al., Respondents.

Case No. 87-753-CIV-ORL-19
Filed Aug. 17, 1993
ORDER

This case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Relief From Judgment Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (Doc. No. 194, filed July 26, 1993).

Petitioner states that in June, 1993 a book entitled “Blind Fury” was published. According to Petitioner, the book was written by the mother of Assistant Attorney General Belle Turner and “purports to be an account of Paul Crow’s genius at work in the Gerry Stano case.” Petitioner describes the book as “tabloid type,” “sensational,” and “filled with sexual overtones.”

Petitioner alleges that the book was written with Paul Crow’s “substantial assistance and active participation” and that the Paul Crow wrote the book’s forward. Petitioner requests the Court to set aside its Order of June 10, 1992 (Doc. No. 160) because of Mr. Crow’s involvement with the book.

The Court finds that Petitioner’s arguments are without merit. Mr. Crow at all times indicated he considered writing a book, but not until the investigation was over. The investigation is over. The fact that a book has now been published, that it focuses on Mr. Crow and that Mr. Crow wrote the forward does not require the Court to set aside the Order of June 10, 1992.

There is no indication that Mr. Crow is the author of this book-only that he assisted the author and wrote the forward. The fact that Ms. Flowers, the author of the book, wrote a sensational book venerating Mr. Crow and that Mr. Crow has not yet been reported to have written a scholarly work as he testified he would like to do does not change the import of the Court’s Order.

Other witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing that they planned to write books involving Mr. Stano which would be based on interviews with, and therefore the assistance of, Mr. Crow. In any event, the Court is unaware of any reason why Mr. Crow would now be foreclosed from authoring a book of his own. Whether his investigation of and testimony concerning Mr. Stano was tainted by his desire to write a book as well as other factors was thoroughly explored at the evidentiary hearing held in this case, and the allegations made in the instant motion demonstrate no facts which would undermine the previous findings of the Court.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Relief From Judgment Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (Doc. No. 194, filed July 26, 1993) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Florida, this 16th day of August, 1993.

PATRICIA C. FAWSETT

United States District Judge

- Murderpedia


THE DANGER OF THE MONSTER MYTH

$
0
0

April 17th 2004

Tom Meagher

One of the most disturbing moments of the past eighteen months of my life was hearing my wife’s killer form a coherent sentence in court. Jill had been murdered almost six months earlier, and Adrian Bayley’s defence team were presenting a rather feeble case for a four-week adjournment of his committal hearing. Bayley appeared via video-link as I sat flanked by two friends and a detective. The screen was to my right, mounted high up and tilted slightly towards the bench. It was uncomfortably silent apart from the occasional paper shuffle or short flurry of keyboard clicks. I anticipated, and prepared for the most difficult moment of the day when Bayley’s face appeared on the big-screen TV, looming over the seat I then occupied. When that moment arrived, a jolt of nausea came and went, but the worst was to come, made all the more horrifying because it was unexpected. The judge asked Bayley whether he could he see the courtroom. I don’t remember his exact words, but he replied that he was able to see his lawyer and half of the bench. I had come face to face with him before in court, but vocally, I never heard him manage more than a monosyllabic mumble into his chest. This was different. There was a clarity of communication, sentence structure, and proper articulation. It was chilling. I had formed an image that this man was not human, that he existed as a singular force of pure evil who somehow emerged from the ether. Something about his ability to weave together nouns, verbs and pronouns to form real, intelligible sentences forced a re-focus, one that required a look at the spectrum of men’s violence against women, and its relation to Bayley and the society from which he came. By insulating myself with the intellectually evasive dismissal of violent men as psychotic or sociopathic aberrations, I self-comforted by avoiding the more terrifying concept that violent men are socialised by the ingrained sexism and entrenched masculinity that permeates everything from our daily interactions all the way up to our highest institutions. Bayley’s appeal was dismissed, but I left court that day in a perpetual trauma-loop, knowing I needed to re-imagine the social, institutional and cultural context in which a man like Adrian Bayley exists.

Three days after Jill’s body was found, 30,000 people marched respectfully down Sydney Road. I watched on T.V as the long parade of people reacted to their anger at what happened to Jill with love and compassion, the very opposite of everything Bayley represents. I remember my sister’s voice from behind me as I fixed my eyes on the images saying, “wow, people really care about this.” After the court date where I heard Bayley speak, that infinite conveyor belt of the compassionate replayed in my mind. People did care about this, and for whatever reason people identified with this particular case, it was something that I hoped could be universalised, not localised to this case, but for every instance of men’s violence against women. The major difficulties in mobilising this kind of outrage on a regular basis is that most cases of men’s violence against women:

1) Lack the ingredients of an archetypal villain and a relatable victim,

2) Are perpetrated and suffered in silence and

3) Are perpetrated by somebody known to the victim.

The more I felt the incredible support from the community, the more difficult it was to ignore of the silent majority whose tormentors are not monsters lurking on busy streets, but their friends, acquaintances, husbands, lovers, brothers and fathers.

Since Jill died, my inbox overflowed with messages from thousands of women who shared with me their stories of sexual and physical abuse. Some were prostitutes who felt it pointless to report sexual assault because of perceived deficiencies in the justice system, some were women whose tormentors received suspended sentences, and felt too frightened to stay in their home town. These are the prevalent, and ongoing stories that too often remain unchallenged in male company.

While the vast majority of men abhor violence against women, those dissenting male voices are rarely heard in our public discourse, outside of the monster-rapist narrative. Indeed, the agency of male perpetrators disappears from the discussion, discouraging male involvement and even knowledge of the prevalence and diversity of male violence against women. Even the term ‘violence against women’ sounds like a standalone force of nature, with no subject, whereas ‘men’s violence against women’ is used far less frequently. While not attempting to broad-brush or essentialise the all too abstracted notion of ‘masculinity’, male invisibility in the language of the conversation can be compounded by masculine posturing, various ‘bro-codes’ of silence, and a belief, through the monster myth, in the intrinsic otherness of violent men. The Canadian feminist and anti-violence educator Lee Lakeman argued that, “Violent men, and men in authority over violent men, and the broader public that authorises those men, are not yet shamed by the harm of coercive control over women…..Maybe we can rest some hope on the growing activity of men of goodwill calling on each other to change. When that group hits a critical mass, the majority of men will be more likely to want to change.” According to an EU wide study conducted in 2010, one person in five knows of someone who commits domestic violence in their circle of friends and family (Special Eurobarometer 344, Domestic Violence Against Women Report, September 2010). Perhaps it’s time we, as non-violent men, attempted to hit this critical mass.

One of the most dangerous things about the media saturation of this crime was that Bayley is in fact the archetypal monster. Bayley feeds into a commonly held social myth that most men who commit rape are like him, violent strangers who stalk their victims and strike at the opportune moment. It gives a disproportionate focus to the rarest of rapes, ignoring the catalogue of non-consensual sex happening on a daily basis everywhere on the planet. It validates a limitation of the freedom of women, by persisting with an obsession with a victim’s movements rather than the vile actions of the perpetrator, while simultaneously creating a ‘canary down the mine’ scenario. Men who may feel uncomfortable by a peer’s behaviour towards women, may absolve themselves from interfering with male group norms, or breaking ranks with the boys by normalising that conduct in relation to ‘the rapist’. In other words he can justify his friend’s behaviour by comparison – “he may be a ___, but he’s not Adrian Bayley.”

The monster myth allows us to see public infractions on women’s sovereignty as minor, because the man committing the infraction is not a monster like Bayley. We see instances of this occur in bars when men become furious and verbally abusive to, or about, women who decline their attention. We see it on the street as groups of men shout comments, grab, grope and intimidate women with friends either ignoring or getting involved in the activity. We see it in male peer groups where rape-jokes and disrespectful attitudes towards women go uncontested. The monster myth creates the illusion that this is simply banter, and sexist horseplay. While most of us would never abide racist comments among a male peer-group, the trivialisation of men’s violence against women often remains a staple, invidious, and rather boring subject of mirth. We can either examine this by setting our standards against the monster-rapist, or by accepting that this behaviour intrinsically contributes to a culture in which rape and violence are allowed to exist.

The monster myth perpetuates a comforting lack of self-awareness. When I heard Bayley forming sentences in court, I froze because I’d been socialised to believe that men who rape are jabbering madmen, who wear tracksuit bottoms with dress shoes and knee-high socks. The only thing more disturbing than that paradigm is the fact that most rapists are normal guys, guys we might work beside or socialise with, our neighbours or even members of our family. Where men’s violence against women is normalised in our society, we often we compartmentalise it to fit our view of the victim. If a prostitute is raped or beaten, we may consider it an awful occupational hazard ‘given her line of work.’ We rarely think ‘she didn’t get beaten – somebody (i.e a man) beat her’. Her line of work is dangerous, but mainly because there are men who want to hurt women. If a husband batters his wife, we often unthinkingly put it down to socio-economic factors or alcohol and drugs rather than how men and boys are taught and socialised to be men and view women.

I wonder at what stage we will stop being shocked by how normal a rapist seemed. Many years ago, two female friends confided in me about past abuses that happened in their lives, both of which had been perpetrated by ‘normal guys’. As I attempted to console them, I mentally comforted myself by reducing it to some, as yet undetected mental illnesses in these men. The cognitive shift is easy to do when we are not knowingly surrounded by men who commit these crimes, but then we rarely need to fear such an attack.

The idea of the lurking monster is no doubt a useful myth, one we can use to defuse any fear of the women we love being hurt, without the need to examine ourselves or our male-dominated society. It is also an excuse to implement a set of rules on women on ‘how not to get raped’, which is a strange cocktail of naiveté and cynicism. It is naïve because it views rapists as a monolithic group of thigh-rubbing predators with a checklist rather than the bloke you just passed in the office, pub or gym, cynical because these rules allow us to classify victims. If the victim was wearing x or drinking y well then of course the monster is going to attack – didn’t she read the rules? I have often come up against people on this point who claim that they’re just being ‘realistic’. While it may come from a place of concern, if we’re being realistic we need to look at how and where rape and violence actually occur, and how troubling it is that we use a nebulous term like ‘reality’ to condone the imposition of dress codes, acceptable behaviours, and living spaces on women to avoid a mythical rape-monster. Ok, this rape-monster did exist in the form of Adrian Bayley, but no amount of adherence to these ill-conceived rules could have stopped him from raping somebody that night.

When Bayley was arrested, the nightmare of the lurking evil stranger was realised. It was beamed through every television set and printed on every newspaper headline in the country. It’s was the reminder that there are men out there who are ‘not like us’, men who exist so far outside our social norms that the problem can be solved simply by extinguishing this person. Bayley became a singular evil that stirred our anger, and provoked a backlash so violent that it mirrored the society from which he emerged, that the answer to violence is more violence.

Many comments on facebook pages and memorial sites set up in honour of Jill, often expressed a wish for Bayley to be raped in prison, presumably at the arbitrary whim of other incarcerated men. Putting aside the fact that wishing rape on somebody is the perhaps last thing we do before exiting civilisation entirely, there is a point that these avengers may have missed – somebody has to do the raping. Vengeance by rape, implies that rape is a suitable punishment for certain crimes. In other words, rape is fine as long as it’s used in the service of retributive justice. Indeed, we would be essentially cheering on the rapist who rapes Bayley, for ensuring that justice is done. Or, if we find this rapist just as abhorrent as Bayley, we’ll need another rapist to rape him, to avenge the rape he committed, and this would go on and on in an infinite loop. In essence this ‘rape as retribution’ argument invokes the need for far too many rapists. For people like Bayley, rape is punishment, it’s how he exerts his dominance, and exhibits his deep misogyny through sexual humiliation. If we, as a society then ask for Bayley to be raped as punishment, are we not cementing the validity of this mind-set?

I dreamed for over a year of how I would like to physically hurt this man, and still often relish the inevitable manner of his death, but wouldn’t it be more beneficial for Jill’s memory, and other women affected by violence to focus on the problems that surround our attitudes, our legal system, our silence rather than focusing on what manner we would like to torture and murder this individual? Adrian Bayley murdered a daughter, a sister, a great friend to so many, and my favourite person. I am the first one who wants to see him vilified and long may he be one of Australia’s most hated people, but it only does any good if this example highlights rather than obscures the social issues that surround men’s violence against women.

What would make this tragedy even more tragic would be if we were to separate what happened to Jill from cases of violence against women where the victim knew, had a sexual past with, talked to the perpetrator in a bar, or went home with him. It would be tragic if we did not recognise that Bayley’s previous crimes were against prostitutes, and that the social normalisation of violence against a woman of a certain profession and our inability to deal with or talk about these issues, socially and legally, resulted in untold horror for those victims, and led to the brutal murder of my wife. We cannot separate these cases from one another because doing so allows us to ignore the fact that all these crimes have exactly the same cause – violent men, and the silence of non-violent men. We can only move past violence when we recognise how it is enabled, and by attributing it to the mental illness of a singular human being, we ignore its prevalence, it root causes, and the self-examination required to end the cycle. The paradox, of course is that in our current narrow framework of masculinity, self-examination is almost universally discouraged.

Since Jill died, I wake up every day and read a quote by Maya Angelou – “history, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.” Male self-examination requires this courage, and we cannot end the pattern of men’s violence against women without consciously breaking our silence.

*Special mention here must be given to Jill Meagher (McKeon), who, many years before she was killed as a result of them, originally introduced me to these issues, to Louise Milligan for her endless support and encouragement to express them, to Clementine Ford, whose personal support, tireless crusade for gender equality and against violence allowed me to organise my thoughts, and to Alan O’Neill and Ben Leonard who have shown me that many men are passionate and serious about ending men’s violence against women.

- White Ribbon Campaign


RIVERA V STATE

$
0
0

Supreme Court of Delaware.
Mark RIVERA, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 111,2010.
Decided: November 10, 2010
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices, and NOBLE, Vice Chancellor,constituting the Court en Banc.1 Ronald G. Poliquin, Esquire, of Chasanov, Schaeffer & Poliquin, Dover, Delaware; for Appellant. John Williams, Esquire, Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware; for Appellee.
Mark Rivera (“Rivera”), the defendant below, appeals from a Superior Court final judgment of conviction for first-degree murder.2 On appeal, Rivera claims that the Superior Court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of a motor vehicle, and improperly restricted his psychiatric expert witness’ testimony at trial. We find no merit to these claims and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On Monday afternoon, October 8, 2007, Christine Pate’s body was discovered floating in the Leipsic River. Police recovered the body, which was covered in dark mud, approximately ten miles from her trailer home located at 16 Pinewood Acres in Dover, Delaware (“Pinewood Acres”). Pate had recently moved to Pinewood Acres to live with her childhood friend, Deanna Hall, who previously lived there with her then-husband, Mark Rivera. After Rivera and Hall divorced, Rivera moved out.

The medical examiner’s (“ME”) report showed that Pate had significant bruising on the right side of her face, abrasions on her forehead, several damaged teeth, and a hemorrhage on her scalp that covered the right side of her head. The ME report determined that the cause of death was asphyxiation due to drowning, complicated by multiple blunt force trauma to the head. At trial, the ME testified that the manner of death was homicide, and that Pate’s injuries were consistent with an attack by a left-handed person.

The Delaware State Police (“DSP”) launched an investigation into Pate’s death. DSP Detectives Michael Maher and William Porter interviewed Derrick Davis, who was Pate’s boyfriend at the time. Davis told the police that he and Pate had spent the weekend at the beach and that he had last seen Pate on Sunday, October 7th, around 11:30 p.m., when he left to return home. Davis also informed the police that Rivera had previously made sexual advances to Pate.

Detective Maher also interviewed Michael Reese, a neighbor who had lived next door to Hall and Rivera for more than a year before Rivera moved out in August 2007. Reese told Maher that on the night of October 7th, he had been sleeping, and was awakened at around 1:00 a.m. by loud banging noises. When Reese looked out his window, he saw a man who fit Rivera’s physical description carrying a small female in a bear hug out the front door of Hall’s trailer.3 The man dropped the female on the front step, and then dragged her around to the side of the trailer. Days later, the DSP asked Reese to give a formal interview and identify from a photographic array the man he had seen. Reese was unable to identify Rivera specifically from the photo lineup. Reese did, however, ask Maher whether the police were investigating “the guy who lived next door,” because he believed that the man he saw was his neighbor, Rivera. At trial Reese positively identified Rivera as the man he saw dragging the female body down the front steps of the Pinewood Acres trailer.

Detective Maher also interviewed Hall. Hall told Maher that her relationship with Rivera ended, in part, because he had become physically violent towards her during his parasomnia (i.e., “sleep terror”) episodes.4 Initially, Rivera’s episodes were rare and non-violent, but towards the end of their marital relationship, the episodes became more frequent. Hall believed that Rivera was faking his sleep terrors and was using them as an excuse to hurt her.5 After she divorced, Hall started dating Pate’s brother. Hall informed Detective Maher that Rivera would repeatedly contact Pate in an effort to learn more information about Hall.

The day after Pate’s body was recovered, DSP Detective Mark Papili and Captain John Evans interviewed Rivera at his Camden, Delaware residence. While there, Detective Papili noticed that Rivera had a 1997 Pontiac Grand Am. When asked about the car, Rivera insisted that he was the only person who used it, and that he never let anyone borrow it. A DELJIS inquiry revealed, however, that the car was registered to Hall. While interviewing Rivera, Papili noticed several fresh lacerations on Rivera’s left hand.6 Detective Papili requested assistance from Detective Robert Daddio, the DSP troop’s evidence technician, who arrived and photographed Rivera’s hand. Papili also asked Rivera about his whereabouts on the night of October 7th. Rivera replied that he had been at home sleeping, but he could not identify any witnesses who could confirm his story.

Detective Daddio also investigated the Pinewood Acres trailer. Inside the trailer, Daddio discovered blood spots, part of a tooth on the linoleum flooring, as well as hair clumps on the trailer steps. A DNA analysis of the blood spots matched Pate’s DNA profile, indicating that she was likely attacked by, and struggled with, her assailant. According to the ME, Pate’s blunt force injuries were not fatal, and Pate would have possibly survived had she received medical attention shortly after she suffered her injuries.

Based on the ME report, the distance of Pate’s body from the crime scene, Reese’s statements to the police, the evidence of a struggle at the trailer, the lacerations observed on Rivera’s left hand, and Hall’s statements about Rivera’s aggressive nature, Detective Maher applied for a warrant to search Rivera’s car. The search warrant application was granted on October 11, 2007. A search of the Grand Am revealed dirt and mud on the passenger seat, as well as blood samples. Paul Gilbert, a forensic DNA analyst at the ME’s office, conducted laboratory tests on the blood samples, and testified at trial that there was a high probability that the samples matched Pate’s DNA profile. Based on that evidence, Rivera was arrested and charged with first-degree murder.

Before trial, Rivera moved to suppress the evidence found during the search of the Grand Am, claiming that the police lacked sufficient probable cause. At an evidentiary hearing held on December 3, 2009, the trial judge, after considering the search warrant application and hearing testimony from Detective Maher, denied Rivera’s suppression motion.

As part of his trial defense, Rivera sought to introduce expert testimony about his parasomnias. On June 1, 2009, he underwent a sleep study conducted by two doctors at the Christiana Hospital. The results of that study did not reveal any sleep terror episodes. Rivera then retained Dr. Burton T. Mark as his expert witness. Dr. Mark prepared a report based on his review of the June 1st sleep study, Hall’s initial investigation statements to Detective Maher, statements from witnesses who lived near Rivera, a statement from Rivera’s cellmate, Craig Coleman, and Rivera’s own statement specially prepared for Dr. Mark’s review. Dr. Mark did not, however, conduct an independent examination of Rivera. In his report, Dr. Mark concluded that he believed Rivera suffered from sleep terrors.

The State then moved in limine to preclude Dr. Mark from testifying at trial about Rivera’s state of mind at the time of the killing. Ruling on that motion, the trial judge held that Dr. Mark could testify about his conclusions about Rivera’s parasomnias, but would not be permitted to opine about whether Rivera was experiencing a sleep terror when Christina Pate was killed.

A five-day jury trial was held in Superior Court from December 7, 2009 through December 15, 2009. Rivera did not testify. At the close of the trial, the jury found Rivera guilty of first-degree murder. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

I. The Motion to Suppress

Rivera first claims that the Superior Court erred by failing to grant his motion to suppress the evidence found during a search of his motor vehicle. He advances two separate grounds. First, Rivera contends that the trial judge found probable cause for the search in reliance on an erroneous conclusion that Hall was a missing person. Second, Rivera argues that the police misled the magistrate by recklessly omitting several exculpatory facts that, if included, would have undermined the finding of probable cause.

This Court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress after an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion.7 The trial court’s formulation and application of legal concepts are reviewed de novo,8 but the trial court’s factual findings will be upheld so long as they are not clearly erroneous.9

A. The Probable Cause Standard

Search warrants are issued only upon a showing of probable cause.10 An affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant application must set forth facts that, within the affidavit’s four corners, are sufficient for a neutral magistrate to conclude that “a crime has been committed and that the property sought to be seized would be found in a particular place.”11 In determining whether probable cause exists, the magistrate must apply a “totality of the circumstances” test to decide if “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”12 In so doing, the magistrate may draw reasonable inferences from the affidavit’s factual allegations.13

This Court reviews a magistrate’s determination of probable cause “with great deference,”14 because “[a] grudging or negative attitude by reviewing courts toward warrants is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant.”15 Although this Court will not “simply rubber stamp a magistrate’s conclusions,”16 our review need only ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding that probable cause existed.17 Where the facts are not disputed, our review of the trial court’s application of the probable cause standard is de novo.18

B. The Allegedly Erroneous Probable Cause Finding

Rivera first argues that the trial court erroneously denied his suppression motion based on its “own erroneous conclusion” that Hall, who owned the 1997 Grand Am, was a missing person, even though in fact she was not. Because the trial court’s probable cause finding rests on that erroneous conclusion about Hall, Rivera contends, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to suppress the evidence discovered during the search of his car.

We disagree. The trial court did not base its finding of probable cause on whether Hall was a missing person. Rather, the trial judge expressly found that the search warrant affidavit’s “four corners” contained sufficient facts to warrant a finding of probable cause. In particular, the affidavit recited that Rivera was in possession of the Grand Am, and that when the police ran a DELJIS inquiry, that car came up as being registered to his ex-wife, Hall. Pate and Hall were roommates at Pinewood Acres, and Rivera had contacted Pate repeatedly to get information about his ex-wife. After recovering Pate’s body in the Leipsic River, the police went to the Pinewood Acres trailer and found broken jewelry, blood, a broken tooth, and hair belonging to Pate, all indicating that she had struggled with her assailant. When the police interviewed Rivera the day after Pate’s body was found, they noticed fresh lacerations on the knuckles of his left hand. Rivera’s injuries were consistent with the medical examiner’s report indicating that Pate’s injuries, which occurred on the right side of her head, were caused by a left-handed person. The affidavit also disclosed that Rivera fit the physical description of the man Hall’s neighbor, Reese, saw on the night of Pate’s attack.

Viewing these facts in the totality of the circumstances, the trial judge held that there was sufficient probable cause to justify a search of the Grand Am. The judge determined that there was a fair probability that the police would recover evidence of the crime, such as blood, hair, fibers, or fingerprints, from the Grand Am, especially since Pate’s attacker likely used a vehicle to transport her body to the river. This determination did not rest on Hall being a missing person. But, even if the trial judge mistakenly confused Pate as the owner of the Grand Am, or incorrectly thought that Hall was a missing person, the court did not rely on those conclusions in finding probable cause. Therefore, Rivera’s first claim of error fails.

C. The Omitted Exculpatory Facts

Rivera’s second claim of error is more troubling. Relying on Franks v. Delaware, he contends that the police recklessly omitted several exculpatory facts from the search warrant affidavit.19 Had those facts been included, Rivera urges, the magistrate would have been unable to find probable cause. According to Rivera, the search warrant affidavit should have included the following exculpatory facts: (1) Reese had seen two men at Pinewood Acres when the female body was being dragged out; (2) after Reese gave the police his statement, he was unable to identify Rivera in a photo lineup; (3) Davis’s statements about Rivera making sexual advances to Pate were based on conduct that had occurred months before her death; and (4) Davis was the last person seen with Pate just hours before her death.

1. What is the appropriate standard of review?

This Court has previously characterized this type of claim as a “reverse-Franks situation.” In Sisson v. State, we held that “[i]f the police omit facts [from a search warrant affidavit] that are material to a finding of probable cause with reckless disregard for the truth, then the rationale of Franks v. Delaware applies,” and the evidence obtained as a result of that search warrant must be suppressed.20 To succeed on a reverse-Franks claim, a defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the police knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, omitted information from the search warrant affidavit that was material to a finding of probable cause.21

The Third Circuit has developed a two-pronged approach for analyzing reverse-Franks claims. First, the court must determine whether the omissions were made with reckless disregard.22 According to the Third Circuit, “omissions are made with reckless disregard for the truth when an officer recklessly omits facts that any reasonable person would know that a judge would want to know” in making a probable cause determination.23 As the Second Circuit stated in Rivera v. United States, “recklessness may be inferred where the omitted information was ‘clearly critical’ to the probable cause determination.”24

If reckless disregard is shown, the court must then address the second prong of the inquiry and determine whether the omissions were “material, or necessary, to the finding of probable cause.”25 To determine whether an omission is “material to a finding of probable cause,” the reviewing court must reconstruct the affidavit to include the newly added information, and then decide whether the “corrected” affidavit would establish probable cause.26

Although the Third Circuit would apply its two-pronged approach sequentially,27 in our view the two prongs need not be addressed in that precise order, because we perceive no meaningful distinction between the “materiality” standard articulated by the Third Circuit, and the objective “reckless disregard” standard of “what a reasonable magistrate would want to know.” Stated differently, a reasonable magistrate would want to know any fact that is material. Therefore, the materiality inquiry may proceed first, before addressing whether the police acted with “reckless disregard.” If a defendant cannot show by a preponderance of the evidence that the omitted information was material, then it does not matter whether the police made those omissions with “reckless disregard.” We apply this approach to Rivera’s claim.

2. Were the omitted facts material?

We first address whether the exculpatory facts Rivera points to are omissions that are “material to a finding of probable cause.” That requires us to reconstruct the affidavit with the newly added information, and then decide whether the “corrected” affidavit would either establish-or undermine-the existence of probable cause.28

Having considered the corrected affidavit, we conclude that the exculpatory facts Rivera points to, when viewed as part of the totality of the circumstances, do not suffice to undermine the finding of probable cause. As the trial judge accurately noted, the police utilized “much more than Reese’s statement to obtain the search warrant.” The “original” affidavit sets forth multiple independent facts, i.e., Rivera being left-handed and the injuries to his left hand, Pate’s injuries to her right side that were consistent with an attack by a left-handed person, evidence of a struggle at Pinewood Acres, the distance from Pate’s Pinewood Acres trailer to where her body was recovered, and Rivera’s possession of Hall’s car. Those facts are sufficient to establish a fair probability that the police would recover evidence of the crime during a search of the Grand Am, because Pate’s attacker most likely used a vehicle to move her body from Pinewood Acres to the river. Such evidence could include blood, hairs, fibers, or fingerprints. The “corrected” affidavit also supports a finding of probable cause, because the omitted exculpatory facts do not undermine or contradict the facts in the “original” affidavit that show a fair probability of recovering evidence of the crime from the Grand Am. Therefore, the omitted facts cannot be “material,” and we need not address whether the police acted with “reckless disregard.” The trial court did not err in denying Rivera’s suppression motion.

We note, however, that this case presents a close call. To be sure, an affidavit need not contain “the entire history of events leading up to a warrant application with every potentially evocative detail that would interest a novelist or gossip,” and the police must exercise a degree of selectivity in deciding what facts to include in a warrant application.29 Nevertheless, we caution that “a police officer cannot make unilateral decisions about the materiality of information, or, after satisfying him or herself that probable cause exists, merely inform the magistrate or judge of inculpatory evidence.”30 Likewise, if police rely on facts of which they have personal knowledge, they should disclose those facts to the magistrate by including them in the affidavit.31

Here, the police did not follow those procedures. For example, paragraph 13 of the affidavit recites that additional facts were known to the police. Those facts were not set forth in the affidavit. During the suppression hearing, Detective Maher testified that after he had shown Reese the photo array, Reese asked him whether the police had investigated the man who was living next door. Reese asked that question, because he thought his former neighbor fit the physical description of the man he saw coming out of Pinewood Acres carrying the female body on the night of Pate’s death. Detective Maher also testified that his investigation revealed that the man who had previously lived next door to Reese was Rivera, and that no other man was then living next door. Maher omitted from his affidavit that information about his conversation with Reese, and the results of his investigation. Had Maher included that additional information, it would have likely strengthened the finding of probable cause, because Reese’s statements identifying the man he had seen dragging the female body out of Pate’s trailer would have helped offset any adverse inference from Reese’s inability to identify Rivera in the photo lineup. Nevertheless, because in all events the corrected affidavit supports a finding of probable cause, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of Rivera’s suppression motion.

II. The Expert Testimony

Rivera also claims that the trial judge erred by improperly restricting the trial testimony of his psychiatric expert witness, Dr. Mark. Although the judge permitted Dr. Mark to testify that Rivera suffered from a history of parasomnias (sleep terrors), the judge did not permit Dr. Mark to testify that Rivera actually experienced sleep terrors on October 7, 2007, the night of Pate’s attack. Rivera claims that Dr. Mark should have been permitted to opine about whether he (Rivera) suffered from a sleep terror on the night he attacked Pate, because that opinion would negate the mens rea required to prove first-degree murder.

Although both parties rely on case law addressing this question under Delaware Rules of Evidence (“DRE”) 704,32 they inexplicably frame their arguments in terms of DRE 702.33 The question is not whether Dr. Mark could testify as to whether Rivera suffered from sleep terrors on the night in question (the subject of DRE 704). Rather, it is whether Dr. Mark’s testimony would be reliable under these circumstances (the subject of DRE 702). Accordingly, as an initial matter, an analysis under DRE 702 is required.

DRE 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. To be admissible, expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable.34 Under DRE 702, a trial judge acts as the “gatekeeper” in deciding whether an expert’s testimony “is not only relevant, but reliable.”35 The trial judge must determine that the expert’s methodology and ultimate conclusion are reliable “based on the methods and procedures of science, rather than subjective belief or speculation.”36 If the trial judge finds the expert testimony not reliable, that testimony is properly excludable under DRE 702.37 We review a trial judge’s decision to exclude expert testimony for abuse of discretion,38 because trial judges, as gatekeepers, “must have considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable.”39

Rivera’s claim cannot succeed. At the December 3rd hearing, the trial judge ruled that Dr. Mark could testify as to Rivera’s history of sleep terrors based on his expert review of statements by third parties who had observed Rivera’s sleep, the June 1, 2009 sleep study, and Rivera’s own statements. Dr. Mark was not, however, permitted to testify that Rivera “was experiencing a sleep terror at the time of the murder.” That ruling was not an abuse of discretion. The record shows that Rivera did not suffer any “sleep terrors” during the June 1, 2009 sleep study, Dr. Mark had never physically examined Rivera, and Dr. Mark conceded at trial that he had never met or spoken with Rivera. The only basis on which Dr. Mark could have formed his expert opinion about whether Rivera actually experienced a “sleep terror” on the night of October 7th would have been Rivera’s own statements and statements from third parties, none of whom were qualified medical experts.40 These statements, without more, cannot constitute “sufficient facts or data” upon which Dr. Mark could properly have based his medical diagnosis, as required by DRE 702.41 Nor has Rivera shown that if Dr. Mark had based his medical diagnosis on these statements, that methodology would be “reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.”42 Therefore, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding Dr. Mark’s testimony about whether Rivera had actually suffered from a parasomnia the night of Pate’s attack, because that testimony would not have been reliable.

Finally, Rivera cannot show that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s ruling. Having chosen not to testify at trial, Rivera waived his right to give his account of what happened on October 7th. At trial, Dr. Mark did testify that he believed Rivera suffered from sleep terrors, and he did recount Rivera’s version of the October 7th events. Dr. Mark testified that Rivera believed Pate was already dead when he woke up from his “sleep terror” episode, explaining that Rivera panicked when he realized he had attacked Pate, and that Rivera wanted to “conceal what had happened” by dumping Pate’s body in the river. Although Dr. Mark was not permitted to opine that Rivera had actually suffered a “sleep terror” on that specific night, he nonetheless effectively told the jury Rivera’s version of the facts-that Rivera attacked Pate during a “sleep terror” and then dumped Pate’s body into the river because he thought she was already dead. To the extent that Rivera wished to present Dr. Mark’s expert testimony to demonstrate that he (Rivera) did not have the requisite mens rea for first-degree murder, the testimony that Dr. Mark was allowed to give, achieved that. Rivera, accordingly, cannot show that the trial court’s exclusion of Dr. Mark’s testimony was prejudicial, and, in any event, the jury was not bound by Dr. Mark’s expert testimony and chose to disregard it.43 The jury instead concluded that Rivera had the requisite intent to kill Pate.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2. 11 Del C. § 636.

3. Reese also told the police that he had seen a second man watching TV inside the Pinewood Acres trailer. The police affidavit, however, did not mention this second man.

4. Parasomnias, or sleep terrors, are a type of sleeping disorder. Michael A. Cramer Bornemann, M.D., et al., Parasomnias: Clinical Features & Forensic Implications, 130 CHEST 605 (2006). According to one scientific study, nearly 2% of the adult population has reported violent behaviors arising from sleep terrors. Id. at 606; see also Arizona v. Falater, No. CR1997-000928-A (Ariz.Super. Ct. Maricopa County 1997) (defendant was charged with first-degree murder after stabbing his wife 44 times and then drowning her; defendant asserted a sleepwalking defense on the basis that he had a history of sleepwalking, was sleep-deprived, and was unconscious at the time of the attack).

5. Hall told the police that during Rivera’s alleged sleep terrors, he would grab her by the throat, or slam her into the door.

6. Rivera is left-handed.

7. Donald v. State, 903 A.2d 315, 318 (Del.2006) (citing Norcross v. State, 816 A.2d 757, 762 (Del.2003)).

8. Id.

9. Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 854 (Del.2009) (citing Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280, 1285 (Del.2008) and Chavous v. State, 953 A.2d 282, 286 n. 15 (Del.2008)).

10. Morgan v. State, 962 A.2d 248, 252 (Del.2008) (citing LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103, 1107 (Del.2008)); Fink v. State, 817 A.2d 781, 786 (Del.2003).

11. Blount v. State, 511 A.2d 1030, 1032-33 (Del.1986) (holding that probable cause exists “when a nexus appears between the items being sought and the place to be searched.”).

12. Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288, 296 (Del.2006) (citations omitted).

13. Id.

14. Smith v. State, 887 A.2d 470, 473 (Del.2005) (“We review a probable cause determination in the issuance of a search warrant with great deference, considering it as a whole and ‘not on the basis of a hypertechnical analysis of its separate allegations.’ “ (quoting Blount, 511 A.2d at 1034)).

15. Id. (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983)).

16. Sisson, 903 A.2d at 296 (quoting United States v. Zimmerman, 277 F.3d 426, 432 (3d Cir.2002)).

17. Id.

18. Id.; Smith, 887 A.2d at 473.

19. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978). In Franks, the defendant challenged a search warrant affidavit on the basis that it contained inaccurate facts. Id. The United States Supreme Court held that where a defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a false statement necessary for the finding of probable cause was made “knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth,” then the evidence obtained from that search warrant must be excluded. Id.

20. Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288, 300 (Del.2006) (quoting Smith v. State, 887 A.2d 470, 472 (Del.2005)); see also Blount v. State, 511 A.2d 1030, 1034 (Del.1986) (“Although the Franks decision dealt with misstatements included in probable cause affidavits, the Superior Court ․ and several other courts have concluded that the Franks rationale is also to be applied to omissions of facts which are material to a finding of probable cause.”).

21. Sisson, 903 A.2d at 300; Smith, 887 A.2d at 472. Here, defense counsel conceded at oral argument that there was no evidence that the police acted “knowingly and intentionally” and, therefore, we need only address the “reckless disregard for the truth” prong of Franks.

22. Reddy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 213 (3d Cir.2010); Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 787-88 (3d Cir.2000); see Sisson, 903 A.2d at 300.

23. Wilson, 212 F.3d at 783.

24. Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592, 604 (2d Cir.1991). In Rivera, the court concluded that the police may properly exclude information regarding a confidential informant’s identity in order to prevent exposing the informant to harm. Id. at 604-05 (“So long as law enforcement agents present adequate information to permit the magistrate to conclude that there is probable cause and do not suppress facts that would cast doubt on its existence, they may properly exclude information that would unduly risk revealing a confidential informant’s identity and exposing him or her to harm.”). The police may not, however, omit information to enhance the contents of the affidavit. Id. (citing United States v. Strini, 658 F.2d 593, 597 (8th Cir.1981) (holding that a failure to reveal an informant’s identity is not a false statement within the meaning of Franks where the omission was intended not to enhance the contents of the affidavit, but to protect the informant)).

25. Wilson, 212 F.3d at 789 (quoting Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir.1997)); see also Reddy, 615 F.3d at 213; Sisson, 903 A.2d at 300.

26. Sisson, 903 A.2d at 300; Smith, 887 A.2d at 472 (“The omitted information is then added to the affidavit so that the existence or absence of probable cause can be re-evaluated.”). See also Reddy, 615 F.3d at 213-23 (applying the Franks analysis for omitted facts in a § 1983 case for false arrest); United States v. Eberle, 266 F.App’x 200, 204-06 (3d Cir.2008) (applying the Franks analysis for omitted facts in an appeal from a denial of a suppression motion); Wilson, 212 F.3d at 787-92 (defining “materiality”).

27. See, e.g., Reddy, 615 F.3d at 213; Eberle, 266 F.App’x at 205; Wilson, 212 F.3d at 789.

28. See supra note 26 and accompanying text.

29. Wilson, 212 F.3d at 787.

30. Id.

31. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 285 n. 6 (1983) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (“When the police rely on facts about which they have personal knowledge, requiring them to disclose those facts to magistrates imposes no significant burden on the police.”); see also Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 163-64 (1978) (noting that statements made in an affidavit that are within the personal knowledge of the affiant weigh towards the integrity of the affidavit).

32. The parties cite to conflicting Superior Court case law in support of their respective positions. Rivera relies on State v. Magner, 732 A.2d 234 (Del.Super.Ct.1997), where that court concluded that under DRE 704, the defense expert could testify as to whether the defendant was acting under the influence of severe emotional distress at the time of the murder. Id. at 244-45. The State points to a contrary opinion by the Superior Court in State v. Hodges, 1996 WL 33655975 (Del.Super.Ct. Sept. 10, 1996), where the court held that, under DRE 704, “Delaware law requires the ‘exclusion of expert testimony that expresses a legal conclusion.’ “ Id. at *2 (quoting North Am. Phillips Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 1995 WL 628447, at *3 (Del.Super.Ct. Apr. 22, 1995)). As a result, the Hodges court prohibited the expert witness from testifying as to whether the defendant “was indeed suffering from extreme emotional distress.” Id. at 245.

33. Since we affirm the trial court’s exclusion of Dr. Mark’s testimony under DRE 702, we do not need to address whether DRE 704 would provide a separate ground to exclude that expert testimony.

34. M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, Inc. 737 A.2d 513, 521 (Del.1999) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993)); see also Price v. Blood Bank of Del., Inc., 790 A.2d 1203, 1210 (Del.2002).

35. M.G. Bancorporation, 737 A.2d at 521; see also Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 906 A.2d 787, 794 (Del.2006).

36. Price, 790 A.2d at 1210 (quoting In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613, 669 (3d Cir.1999)).

37. Id.

38. M.G. Bancorporation, 737 A.2d at 522 (“[A]n appellate court must apply an abuse of discretion standard when ‘it reviews a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony.’ “ (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997))).

39. Garden v. State, 815 A.2d 327, 338 (Del.2003) (quoting Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)), superseded by statute on other grounds, 11 Del. C. § 4209(d) (2003).

40. According to Dr. Mark’s report, he reviewed statements from Craig Coleman (Rivera’s cellmate), Hall, and other residents living near Rivera’s home.

41. Del. Unif. R. Evid. 702 states:If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

42. Santiago v. State, 510 A.2d 488, 490 (Del.1986) (citing DRE 703); see also Del. Unif. R. Evid. 703.

43. State v. Magner, 732 A.2d 234, 245 (Del.Super.Ct.1997) (“It is also important to note that if a medical expert states his conclusion whether a defendant was “acting under the influence ․ at the time of a murder,” the jury is not bound by this expert’s testimony. A jury may always disregard the testimony of a witness and draw its own conclusions.”) (internal citations omitted).

JACOBS, Justice.

- Findlaw


TWO DEAD IN SEPARATE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

$
0
0

Sunday August 25 2013

- A man was killed when his van struck traffic lights before slamming into trees in Oakleigh South yesterday.
Major Collision Investigation Unit detectives are appealing for witnesses to the horrific crash.
Investigators believe a white Mercedes van was traveling east on North Road when it lost control, and hit a traffic light and several trees about 12:30pm. The front male passenger in the van died at the scene. He is yet to be identified.
The male driver was taken to The Alfred Hospital with minor injuries.
In a separate crash, an elderly woman was killed in Coldstream just before 1pm.
It is believed a Mitsubishi sedan was turning into Maddens Lane from the Maroondah Highway when it drove into the path of a Toyota four-wheel-drive.
The Bulleen woman, who was a passenger in the Mitsubishi sedan, died at the scene.
The driver, an elderly man also from Bulleen, was taken to Maroondah Hospital with minor injuries – Wayne Flower


Viewing all 1110 articles
Browse latest View live