Archive

Archive for the ‘murder’ Category

Man says dad’s order got him out of accused killer’s truck

March 30, 2010 schnurbush 11 comments

Man says dad’s order got him out of accused killer’s truck

By Gabriel Falcon, AC360 Writer
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • At father’s insistence, 16-year-old got out of murder suspect’s truck
  • Five of his friends vanished and are presumed to have been killed
  • Two men were charged this week with murder, arson in the 1978 case
  • The bodies of the five teenagers never were found

Newark, New Jersey (CNN) – If he hadn’t been an obedient son, and if his father hadn’t been looking out for him, police say, another teen probably would have disappeared with his friends in Newark the night of August 20, 1978.

Roderick Royster had joined other teenagers in the back of a pickup truck that evening, but when his father told him to get out, he did.

The five who left in the truck have never been seen again.

It’s a mystery that has persisted for 32 years. But this week, police and prosecutors announced the arrests of Lee Anthony Evans, 56, and his cousin, Philander Hampton, 53, who have been charged with five counts of murder, as well as arson. Both have pleaded not guilty.

They are accused of killing Melvin Pittman, 17, Ernest Taylor, 17, Alvin Turner, 16, Randy Johnson, 16, all of Newark, and Michael McDowell, 16, of East Orange.

Royster, who was 16 at the time, said he had already hopped onto Evans’ pickup truck when his father ordered him and his brother to go home.

“He says, ‘Get off that truck,’” he recalled in a brief phone interview. Royster, whose recollection was that his brother was on the truck with him, said they both obeyed and got out of the truck. (Investigators have referred to Roderick Royster as “number six” in the case, but never have mentioned his brother.)

“I was happy they finally got [Evans],” Royster said. He said he “always knew” who was responsible. “It’s been 32 years and it’s about time. It’s time to get some closure.”

Evans’ attorney, Michael A. Robbins, says his client is innocent, pointing out that Evans cooperated with police in 1978 and passed a polygraph test.

“In a case such as this, where the evidence has been lost, great care must be taken to prevent outrage, anger and emotion acting as a substitute in court for competent testimony, evidence and proof,” Robbins said in a statement.

According to authorities, the defendants led the teens into an abandoned house, killed them and set the building on fire. No trace of them was ever found.

At the time, Newark was full of abandoned buildings. So many caught fire — 2,600 of them in 1978 — that firefighters would let the vacant ones burn, said Lt. Louis Carrega, of the Essex County Prosecutor’s office.

“From what I understand, they were not going to vacant buildings,” Carrega said. “They would not send firefighters into vacant buildings.”

For 32 years, the case of the “Clinton Avenue Five,” as it came to be known, haunted the boys’ families and police. None of the teens were likely runaways. None had police records.

A break in the case came about 18 months ago when a witness came to detectives with information that the arson of one abandoned building in 1978 was connected to the case.

Although it took detectives three decades, Royster and relatives of the victims said they never doubted that Evans was responsible.

“We were right, we were right all along, said Michael McDowell’s sister, Terry Lawson. “In all these 30 years, we knew it was him.”

Back then, Evans, a hulking 25-year-old, was known by another name in the neighborhood. “They called him Big Man,” said Jack Eutsey, a former Newark police detective who investigated the case for the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office.

“He was big and he was tall. He had a reputation for being dangerous,” Eutsey added.

Floria McDonald recalls Evans was “kind of smart and nasty” when she confronted him about her missing son, Alvin Turner.

A neighbor told her she’d seen Alvin get into Evans’ truck. McDonald says she confronted him about it the week her son vanished.

“I told him that the children were seen on the back of his truck that night, and he told me he don’t give a damn what nobody says,” she recalled.

Eutsey, the retired detective, described Evans as a contractor who occasionally hired neighborhood teens for odd jobs. In return, he gave them food, money, and drugs, he said.

Shortly before the boys disappeared, some teenagers broke into Evans’ apartment and stole more than a pound of marijuana, investigators said.

“They crossed him,” Eutsey said, “and they couldn’t get away from that.”

Read more about arrests in the “Clinton Avenue Five” case

On the last night they were seen, the boys played basketball and then returned home. A short time later, Evans drove by and picked up them up, one by one. They thought they were going to help him move boxes, police said.

Lawson, who was 11 at the time, recalled Evans was wearing blue jeans, construction boots and a blue T-shirt when he arrived to pick up her brother, Michael.

“When Michael came out, I found it strange that he didn’t get in from the passenger side,” Lawson recalled. “Evans got out and Michael went in from the driver’s side and he sat in the middle seat.”

“When they drove off I clearly remember the back of his head and you see Michael and Evans’ head right next to him. I watched that truck drive down Main Street. That’s the last time I saw him.”

Evans blended into the background as memories faded for some.

“For the past 32 years he has led an unremarkable life of hard work and taking care of his family,” said Robbins, Evans’ lawyer, “and has had no contact with the criminal justice system.”

But for the boys’ families, the pain remained.

“This devastated my family,” said Lawson. “My mother was completely devastated. Every day she would sit in that window and wait for Michael to come home. She would sit there for hours at night and no one could answer the phone because she was expecting a call from Michael.”

Michael’s mother died of leukemia the year after he disappeared.

Some time during the mid-1980s, Lawson said, she was in the supermarket when her sister pointed out Evans and said, “That’s that guy that took Michael.”

“I looked at him and I just had chills.”

Categories: murder Tags:

Doctor guilty in wife’s cyanide murder

March 6, 2010 schnurbush 25 comments

Doctor guilty in wife’s cyanide murder

By Ann O’Neill and Emanuella Grinberg, CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • NEW: “There was no dispute that he gave her the pills,” juror says after verdict 
  • Yazeed Essa was convicted of lacing wife’s calcium supplements with cyanide
  • Prosecutors say Essa wanted to replace his wife with his mistress
  • Jury deliberated about 18 hours over three days

(CNN) — A former Ohio emergency room physician was convicted of aggravated murder Friday in the 2005 poisoning death of his wife.

Jurors deliberated about 18 hours over three days before reaching a verdict in the case of Yazeed Essa, who was accused in the cyanide death of his wife, Rosemarie.

The courtroom in Cleveland, Ohio, was packed with Rosemarie Essa’s family members, many of whom broke into tears when the verdict was announced shortly after 1 p.m. ET.

Prosecutors alleged during the six-week trial that Essa laced his wife’s calcium supplements to escape a loveless marriage. He faces life in prison and would not become eligible for parole for 20 years.

During deliberations, jurors asked Judge Deena Calabrese whether they could break open a calcium capsule to determine whether that required any special skill or knowledge, a request the judge granted.

The trial included testimony from more than 60 witnesses who told the story of a philandering doctor, his many mistresses and an international manhunt that crossed three continents and ended with his arrest in Cyprus in October 2006,18 months after his wife’s death.

Defense attorneys pointed to a lack of physical evidence linking Essa to the tainted supplements and urged jurors not to convict him for his playboy lifestyle.

The defense also attempted to cast suspicion on Essa’s mistresses. Two of them testified, one saying she never loved Essa and another saying she believed him when he promised to be her soul mate.

After the verdict, jurors said Essa’s lawyers did not convince them that the women were involved. Instead, they attributed their verdict to the cumulative effect of the evidence, from the capsules laced with cyanide to Essa’s flight from the United States before a cause of death was announced.

“There was no dispute that he gave her the pills. It couldn’t be disputed, and I think that is a main component,” a male juror said after the verdict. “The bottom line is, one pill was given to her on the 24th, and that’s what really matters.”

Rosemarie Essa’s friends said the 38-year-old mother of two and former nurse believed that she was in a happy marriage. She was driving to the movies in the family Volvo when she felt ill, passed out and hit another vehicle before rolling to a stop against a curb.

She died at a hospital. An autopsy revealed more than four times the lethal amount of cyanide in her system. Nine cyanide-laced capsules were found in her calcium supplements.

Before she crashed, Rosemarie Essa called a friend from her car, prosecutor Anna Faraglia told jurors in her closing argument. Essa told the friend, Eva McGregor, that she was beginning to feel sick to her stomach and wondered whether a supplement her husband had given her was making her ill.

McGregor testified for the prosecution. So did the two mistresses: Marguerita Montanez said that they often trysted at a local Motel 6 but that the relationship was just about sex, and Michelle Madeline said that she fell hard for Essa and that he appeared to be in love with her.

Another prosecutor, Steven Dever, played a video clip for the jury of Madeline testifying about how Essa said she’d fit into his family.

“He had spoken to me, and he had said, ‘You will be the only mommy that they remember.’ He said, ‘Rosie’s parents will come to love you as a daughter.’ “

Madeline also testified that she and Essa remained intimate after his wife’s death, even while she took care of his children.

Dever said the testimony clearly showed Essa’s motive.

“He doesn’t want to get divorced from Rosie,” Dever said. “He wants to replace Rosie. The defendant wants to end the relationship but continue the lifestyle he has grown accustomed to — not as a divorced doctor but as a widower doctor.”

The defense countered that that although he was a cad and a cheater, Yazeed Essa was no killer. Attorney Steven Bradley told the jury that Essa enjoyed his lifestyle and wouldn’t jeopardize it. Because his wife was unaware of his infidelities, he had no motive to kill her, Bradley argued.

“Why would somebody turn their whole life upside down, put everything at risk that they’ve been working for?” Bradley asked.

He acknowledged, “It is difficult not to look over here with anything other than disgust and disdain when you look at Yazeed Essa. But none of that is evidence. None of that proves anything.”

Bradley said nothing directly proved that Essa laced the calcium capsules or even gave one to his wife.

Prosecutor Dever got the final word before the judge read jurors 34 pages of instructions and sent them to the jury room at midday Tuesday to deliberate.

Dever pointed out that Yazeed Essa’s brother, Faris, sent him money after Essa fled to Lebanon. After Essa was captured in Cyprus and was in jail, he admitted to Faris that he had poisoned his wife, Dever added.

“The coward gets out of Dodge, and he runs,” Dever told the jury. “He leaves his children behind. There’s no testimony about a goodbye. No testimony about a message being sent.”

One female juror noted that throughout the trial, Essa did not display any emotion, not even when a picture of his wife and children was shown in court.

“When your kids ain’t there, you’re gonna miss them. You’re gonna cry. No expression at all. He hadn’t seen these kids in five years, no expression, no tears, no nothing,” she said.

In his closing argument, Dever urged jurors to find the truth for the children.

“One day these children will go on a journey and come back to this room and try to find out what happened to their mother. What your decision will be will complete the accounting of the life of Rosemarie Essa,” Dever said, urging jurors to find the truth.

“What they need to find solace is the truth,” he said, drawing tears from Rosemarie Essa’s family members. “Only with the truth can Rosie rest at peace. Only with the truth can justice be done.”

Categories: murder Tags: ,

No parole for ‘Onion Field’ killer

January 31, 2010 schnurbush 21 comments

No parole for ‘Onion Field’ killer

By Gabe Falcon, CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Gregory Powell gained infamy after Joseph Wambaugh wrote about his crime
  • Powell, 76, is among California’s longest-serving inmates
  • He and an accomplice kidnapped and murdered a police officer in 1963
  • Read more Crime + Punishment on the AC360 blog

New York, CNN — For the 11th time, a California board has voted to deny parole to Gregory Powell, the infamous “Onion Field” cop killer whose 1963 crime was chronicled in Joseph Wambaugh’s best-selling book.

The decision, which was announced Wednesday night, was praised by the Los Angeles Police Protective League. “We greatly appreciate that the Parole Board weighed the details of the egregious crime committed by Powell and decided to keep him behind bars,” league President Paul M. Weber said in a written statement.

Powell, 76, is among the longest- serving inmates in California’s prison system, a department of corrections spokesperson told CNN.

It has been nearly 47 years since Powell and his accomplice, Jimmy Lee Smith, kidnapped and murdered Los Angeles Police Officer Ian Campbell.

On the night of March 9, 1963, Powell and Smith were driving around L.A. looking for a liquor store to rob.

Officer Campbell and his partner, Officer Karl Hettinger, pulled the two thieves over in a routine stop. Powell, who was ordered out of the car, pointed a gun at Campbell’s head. He and Smith disarmed both officers, took them hostage, and drove to a remote onion field in Bakersfield.

The officers were forced out of the car and ordered to stand with their hands above their heads. Powell said to them, “We told you we were going to let you guys go, but have you ever heard of the Little Lindbergh Law?”

“Yes,” Campbell replied. Powell then shot him to death. Hettinger escaped but the murder of his partner haunted him for the rest of his life.

Powell and Smith were sentenced to death in November 1963. Their sentences were commuted to life in prison with the possibility of parole in the early 1970s when the death penalty was declared unconstitutional.

Smith died at a California detention center in 2007.

A statement from the slain officer’s daughter, Valerie Campbell Moniz, who was 3 when her father was killed, was read at Wednesday’s parole hearing.

“There has not been one day that has passed that I have not thought about and dreamed about my dad. Growing up without him has been devastating, but what torments me is the manner in which my father died,” Moniz wrote.

Speaking of Powell, she said, “He willfully shot my father with a cold and callous heart. He had no regard for human life. His act was even more despicable because he showed no compassion or mercy. To this day he has shown no regret for murdering my dad.

“Gregory Powell must spend the rest of his life in prison. To release him dishonors the memory of my father, law enforcement, and the Los Angeles Police Department. To release him only sends the message to criminals that the taking of a human life, especially that of a law enforcement officer, is acceptable.”

Powell is housed at California Men’s Colony, a minimum and medium security detention center. A department of corrections spokesperson said he has had several rules violations. He can seek parole again in three years.

The Little Lindbergh Law makes a kidnapping within the state a capital offense even if the victim is unharmed. It followed a federal law, nicknamed the Lindbergh Law, that made taking a kidnapped person across state lines a federal crime. That law was passed after the kidnapping and murder of the young son of Charles Lindbergh in 1932.

Betty Broderick, symbol of extreme divorce, asks for parole

January 21, 2010 schnurbush 21 comments

Betty Broderick, symbol of extreme divorce, asks for parole

By Ann O’Neill, CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Betty Broderick was convicted of second-degree murder after two trials
  • The second trial was among the first cases broadcast by Court TV
  • Broderick shot ex-husband, new wife after long, bitter divorce
  • It is the first time her case has come up before California’s parole board

(CNN) — When Elisabeth “Betty” Broderick’s successful husband of 16 years dumped her for his young legal assistant, she seethed with a white-hot fury.

She was one angry Betty, as a California writer, a long-time Broderick watcher, recently observed.

She covered the walls of his house in San Diego with black spray-paint and drove her car through his front door. She left angry, obscenity-laced tirades on his answering machine. Then she crept into his bedroom early on a Sunday morning and shot him and his new wife to death.

When she was arrested and tried in the early 1990s, she said she was the victim, telling a tale that resonated with many housewives who feared being replaced by younger women. Court-watchers broke into two camps, known as Betty-boosters and Betty-bashers.

Now 62, Betty Broderick has been in prison longer than she was Mrs. Daniel Broderick. She wants to get out. And so, the case that spawned several books and two made-for-TV movies starring Meredith Baxter, the mom from the hit series “Family Ties,” is stirring strong emotions all over again.

Broderick has a date Thursday with California’s parole board. It is the first time she has been eligible for release for the 1989 murders of Harvard-educated San Diego attorney Daniel T. Broderick, 44, and his wife of seven months, Linda Kolkena Broderick, 28.

Dan and Linda Broderick’s friends and family plan to be out in force to voice their opposition. Betty’s four children remain divided over whether she should go free, said prosecutor Richard Sachs.

Dan Broderick’s brother, Larry, said Betty Broderick’s sob story portraying herself as the victim was a tissue of lies. He told CNN she made up stories about her ex-husband and his new wife during her two trials in the early 1990s.

The story Betty Broderick told was so compelling it took on a life of its own. Whether it can withstand the test of time is one of the issues likely to be addressed by the parole board. Hindsight tends to paint a sharper — and harsher — picture.

Betty’s version: She was a stay-at-home mom who worked to put her husband through medical and law school only to lose her “Ward and June Cleaver” marriage when her husband fell under a younger woman’s spell.

Larry Broderick’s story: No, she did not put her husband through school. No, they did not have an idyllic marriage. “Normal people just don’t seem to get that murderers will lie to save their skin,” he said. “And, did you know that dead people have no rights? A person can slander and libel and say anything they want about a dead person, and you can’t stop it.”

“What the public sees is the older woman dumped for the younger woman, and they get upset about that and forget all the rest,” Sachs said.

These facts were never in dispute:

During a bitter and protracted divorce, Daniel Broderick won full custody of their children and married Linda Kolkena in April 1989.

Seven months later, armed with a .38-caliber pistol, Betty Broderick walked into the couple’s bedroom and fired five times. Linda Broderick died instantly. Dan Broderick was shot in the chest and died more slowly as his lungs filled up with blood. Betty Broderick ripped the telephone extension from the wall so he could not call for help, according to testimony.

Other facts seemed to have been lost in the drama. Broderick had bought the gun a month before her husband remarried. She practiced shooting. She made threats. And, she took her daughter’s key to sneak into a house that, under a restraining order, she was forbidden to enter, according to testimony.

Two murder trials — the first ended in a hung jury — focused on Betty Broderick’s state of mind. The courtroom drama was a wronged woman’s dream.

According to testimony, Broderick long suspected her husband was having an affair, which she confirmed when she tried to surprise him at the office on his birthday and learned he’d spent much of the day with his legal assistant. In a rage, she threw his clothes into the yard and burned them.

She said Dan Broderick abused her and then used his legal connections to crush her as their marriage broke up.

“The family hates these lies because Dan was about as honorable and wonderful a guy as you would want to meet,” said his brother Larry. “There are hundreds of people out there who feel the same way about him. All he wanted to do was get away from this woman.”

A Harvard-educated former president of the San Diego Bar Association, Dan Broderick was so well regarded in the legal community that the library of the Bar Association building was re-named the Broderick room after his death.

Betty Broderick’s diaries were read in court, and Dan’s answering machine tapes were played — including one in which their son pleaded with his mother to stop using “bad words” about his father. The couple’s oldest daughter, Kimberly, testified that her mother told her she hated the girl’s father and wished the children had never been born.

Betty Broderick alleged that her ex-husband penalized her for her outbursts, deducting hundreds of dollars from support payments. She said he used a little-known legal clause to sell her house without her signature.

“Any time you’ve got these things going on, people are not at their best, honestly,” prosecutor Sachs said. But he said he believes Betty Broderick turned to violence because she just couldn’t get over it.

“The part that nobody sees is it was already five years later on the timeline,” Sachs said. “She’s getting 16 grand a month and a nice house in La Jolla, and it’s time to move on.”

She testified at her 1990 murder trial that she only wanted to talk to her ex-husband and then “splash my brains all over his house,” but fired at the couple because she feared they’d call the police.

“They moved, I moved and it was all over,” she testified, according to news accounts of the trial.

Mental health experts for the defense said Broderick was depressed; prosecution experts said she was a narcissist.

Broderick’s retrial, among the first cases carried on Court TV, resulted in guilty verdicts on two counts of second-degree murder. It was a compromise verdict because jurors couldn’t agree that the killings were premeditated.

In several media interviews after the trials, Broderick continued to portray herself as the victim. “It wasn’t like I planned to kill somebody and now I’m sorry,” she told the Los Angeles Times after her conviction in 1991.

Broderick received consecutive sentences of 15-years to life in prison, with an additional two years for a gun conviction. CNN attempted to reach Broderick through her supporters but she did not respond.

To win the support of the parole board would likely require an acknowledgement of wrongdoing and an apology, said Jack Earley, the lawyer who defended Broderick during the two trials.

Scott Eadie, the attorney representing Broderick before the parole board, said about 200 people, many affiliated with support groups for victims of spousal abuse, had written letters vouching for Broderick.

“The test is whether she poses a risk for society,” Eadie said. Asked if Broderick was prepared to show remorse, he replied, “It’s her hearing. Hopefully she’ll show remorse and insight into the crime.”

Said prosecutor Sachs: “The most compelling argument is she has failed to achieve any real insight into taking responsibility for what she’s done. She hasn’t done the work to realize she didn’t have the right to sneak into somebody’s house and take two lives.”

 
Categories: murder, parole Tags: ,

CRM 101 Internet Blogging Assignment #5: Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and “Changling”

October 28, 2009 schnurbush 65 comments

Introduction to Criminology–CRM 101

Internet Blogging Assignment #5:  Due Tuesday November 10, 2009 at the beginning of class

Instructions:  For this internet blogging assignment, students are asked to (1) view during class the ”true life” movie ”Changling” starring Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich (2008), (2) read through the true life chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders as found from a website below, then (3) answer the following questions regarding a comparison between the film and the “true life” story of the murders:

a.  Compare the movie “Changling” to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.  Did you find the movie “Changling” to be a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, or was it simply “Hollywood” trying to make a buck?

b.  Do you believe it’s good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders?  Why or Why not?

c.  If you could change anything about the movie “Changling” to make it more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, what would you change in the movie?  Why?  If you wouldn’t change anything in the movie, support your view as well.

When you enter your blog online, please make sure to label your responses (a, b, c) clearly.  Responses may be a little longer than in previous blogging assignments, so take your time and think your answers through.  Remember:  one of the most important aspects of this course is being able to “apply” reality to theory.  Good luck and have fun! 

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Retrieved from Web 10/28/09:  http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2008/12/real-stories-behind-changeling.html

 The Wineville Chicken Murders, the impersonation of Walter Collins, LAPD corruption, and the secrets of Canada’s Northcott family

The case of serial killer Gordon Stewart Northcott and little Walter Collins is so surpassingly bizarre, so full of incredible twists, that even a full-length feature film from one of Hollywood’s premiere directors couldn’t properly do it justice. It is, in fact, one of the strangest cases in the history of American justice. Yet this nearly-forgotten story of abuse of power, family dysfunction, and deception remains deeply revelent today, in a time when unlawful detainment, official malfeasance, and extralegal measures like “extraordinary rendition” are common.

By the time the events of the “Wineville chicken coop murders” reached their tragic conclusion, a police force had been disgraced, a town had decided to change its name, and at least five people were dead.

Our story begins on March 10, 1928, the day 9-year-old Walter Collins disappeared from Los Angeles on his way to a movie matinee. At this time the LAPD was rife with corruption. A “gun squad” practiced its own strange brand of urban Western justice under the leadership of Police Chief James “Two Guns” Davis, mowing down suspected criminals and inconvenient persons alike under the force’s shoot to kill policy; bodies were routinely found in alleys, warehouses, and other dark corners of the city. The LAPD also had its fingers in an array of criminal enterprises (bootlegging, prostitution, extortion, bribery), and was frantically trying to cleanse its image as public outcry against the corruption grew louder and more strident every day. In this maelstrom, the Collins investigation went absolutely nowhere. Police breezily assured Walter’s mother Christine, whose husband was serving a sentence in Folsom Prison, that her son might have run away from home and would probably return on his own, even after 12-year-old Lewis Winslow and his 10-year-old brother, Nelson, vanished from Pomona on May 16th. They left the Model Yacht Club that evening after working on some arts and crafts, and never returned home.

Sanford

That July, 21-year-old chicken rancher Gordon Stewart Northcott was having family trouble. Northcott and his parents had moved illegally to California from their native Canada four years earlier. The Northcotts had purchased the three-acre chicken ranch near the town of Wineville, Riverside County, for their son when he was 19 years old. Stewart, as he was known in the family, had lived there by himself only a few months before he drove to Saskatoon to fetch a housemate: his 13-year-old nephew, Sanford Clark. Stewart’s older sister, Winnifred, was separated from her husband and working to support her children, so having Stewart and her parents look after the boy might have eased her burden somewhat.
With Sanford as unpaid labour, Gordon and his father Cyrus (known as George) built a house, a garage, six chicken coops, and numerous outbuildings on the ranch.
Sanford rose every day at 5:30 to make breakfast, then did farm chores while Stewart “ran errands”. At various times Northcott told neighbors and school officials that Sanford was studying to enter the priesthood, attending a Catholic school, or recuperating from an illness. Sometimes he said Sanford was old enough to quit school. These were all lies. Sanford hadn’t attended a single day of classes since his arrival in the U.S.

But this was not the worst thing happening at Stewart’s ranch. At least twice a week, Stewart would rape his nephew. He flew into rages without provocation, beating the boy frequently. He also brought about a dozen young boys to the ranch to be sexually assaulted. He released them with threats to find and kill them if they told anyone. He had tried to molest his mechanic’s teen son on several occasions. In August of 1927 a father caught Stewart trying to lure his son from Pickering Park, and chased him away with a knife. Two years before that, he had been arrested for inappropriate behaviour toward a friend’s little brother. Stewart would mourn his loss of this boy for years, playing the child’s favourite song (Song of Songs) on the piano as he sat on a stool the boy had made. Awaiting execution, he played a recording of the song over and over on a phonograph.

There was much more. Between February 1st and the end of May, 1928, Stewart had carried out and covered up four murders – with Sanford’s unwilling help.

Now, at the end of July, Sanford’s 19-year-old sister Jessie was planning a trip to California. Though the family had no reason to think Sanford was being mistreated in any way, they suspected he wasn’t attending school; his cheery letters home hadn’t improved much in quality over the two years he had been in Stewart’s care.
Jessie arrived from Vancouver by boat on July 26th, to her uncle’s extreme displeasure. She found her little brother work-hardened, “peaked”, and fearful, but he insisted he was still attending school and enjoying himself on the farm – at least when Stewart was around. When he wasn’t, Sanford gave Jessie details of the horrors he had survived at the ranch.

The Mexican

On February 1st, Sanford told his sister, their Uncle Stewart had returned to the ranch from one of his mysterious “errands” and announced that he had just murdered a young Mexican man. He had the man’s severed head in a bucket, and showed it to Sanford before he burned it in a bonfire and disposed of the charred remains. He said he had dumped the man’s body near Puente.
In a later account, Stewart admitted to this murder but wildly embellished the story, claiming he had to shoot the man nine times in the heard before he would die. Then Louise mopped up the bloodstain.
Whatever the circumstances of the murder, the entire family was complicit in covering it up. They agreed not to tell the authorities anything unless asked. Stewart had forced Sanford to tell his parents, George and Louise, that Stewart had hired the Mexican to do some chores at the ranch, caught him stealing, and was threatened with a knife. So Sanford shot him.
The following day, the headless body of a Mexican man roughly 18 years old, covered by a burlap sack, was found by the side of a road near Puente. The remains were never identified. Stewart, when referring to the man, would use either the fictitious name “Alvin Gothea” or the generic name “Jose Gonzales”. At times he claimed that he had to kill the Mexican because he “knew too much”.

Walter

Walter Collins was taken to the ranch the same day he disappeared. By all accounts, Louise was there helping with chores for the week, and she knew that a young boy was staying at the ranch. She admittedly fed him meals.
Here, the accounts diverge. At different times, both Louise and Stewart admitted to killing Walter Collins with an axe. By the time of his trial in January 1929, Stewart was still more or less admitting that he did it, but only because Walter supposedly saw him shoot and kill a miner who was trying to rob another miner near a little shack Stewart had rented that month.

Once, Stewart confessed to overdosing Walter with ether as he slept on his cot, then shooting him when he said he felt “fine and dandy” and fell unconscious. But he insisted it was Louise who struck the fatal blow. At other times, he denied ever laying eyes on Walter Collins.

At her trial, Louise testified that Walter just showed up at the ranch one night and asked to stay, so she set up a cot for him in one of the chicken coops. The next day, the boy waited around while Stewart fixed up his car. That night, Louise said, she went out to the coop to fetch something and found the boy on his cot with his head “crushed in”, but still alive. “I took the ax and hit him on the temple and finished him up to keep him out of his suffering.” She hinted that Sanford had injured the boy; he was just exiting the coop when Louise approached it, while Stewart was presumably still tinkering with his car. (3, 56)

Sanford’s account was much different. He knew exactly what his uncle liked to do with young boys. And it seems Louise was also aware of her son’s pedophilia. She suggested to Sanford and her son that Walter must be killed; he would talk if allowed to leave the ranch alive. (Today, this seems like an eerie foreshadowing of the Pickton family. In 1967 Louise Pickton allegedly drowned a 14-year-old boy her son had struck with his vehicle, rolling him into a water-filled ditch to hide the accident. Years later, her other son – Robert – was convicted of killing numerous women and burying their bodies on his pig farm.)
Louise said each of them would have to participate in the murder so they would be equally culpable if caught. They would each strike the boy once with an axe.
Two years later, at the foot of the gallows, three men would approach the death of Stewart Northcott with the same logic. Each man would step forward and slice one of three cords, only one them actually attached to the trapdoor through which the prisoner’s body would plummet. That way, the men would never know which one of them caused the man’s death.

The Northcotts entered the coop where Walter lay asleep, and by the light of a flashlight struck the boy repeatedly with an axe. He was buried in an adjoining coop. Later, Stewart moved the body and reburied it with lime.

The three accounts agreed on only one point: Walter Collins was dead.

The Winslow Brothers

Around 10:00 on the night of May 16th, Stewart arrived at the ranch with Lewis and Nelson Winslow. Sanford was ordered to set up the hen house for them, then nail the door shut with the boys and Stewart inside (Stewart would open the door from the inside when he was ready to get out). The boys were held in the hen house for about a week. This time, Louise wasn’t present. It was Sanford who brought the boys food and water, and emptied their chamberpot. He said the brothers drew pictures and played cards.
Stewart made the boys write two letters to their parents, telling them they had run away to Mexico “to make a lot of money making yachts and airplanes” and were “having a wonderful adventure”, a ploy he probably picked up from another child-killer (see the section on Stewart, below).

On the 25th or 26th, Stewart announced it was time to kill the boys. After an unsuccessful attempt to kill the older boy, Lewis, with ether, Stewart sent him to the house. He and Sanford then killed Nelson, and later Lewis, by striking him over the head and burying him alive.

Stewart didn’t always explicitly deny the murders during his trial, but he did try to heap as much blame as possible onto his nephew. At one point, he claimed Sanford had beaten Nelson to death and concealed the body from Lewis for three days. Finally, Lewis’ questions about his brother became so persistent that Stewart killed him. Representing himself, he grilled Sanford on the witness stand as to why he hadn’t protested killing the Winslow brothers, or run to the neighbors for help. Surely this was one of the most surreal moments in an already bizarre trial: Stewart actually mocking the boy for overestimating his ability to control the situation.

The Lucky Ones

With four murders behind them, the Northcott family embarked on a demented family project engineered by Stewart. In late June, Stewart posed as the personal secretary of a fabulously wealthy “Mrs. Rowan” and presented himself at the Salvation Army in L.A., seeking a laborer/cook for one of Mrs. Rowan’s numerous ranches. He selected Jacob Dahl, a married father of four sons ranging in age from 8 to 15.
Louise was to pose as Stewart’s aunt, and Sanford was to be her son. Stewart introduced himself to Mr. and Mrs. Dahl as “Mr. Craig”. He drove them out to the ranch and served them a light supper, including peaches that seemed to have some sort of capsules sprinkled over them. Mrs. Dahl found this this, and the family’s nervous behavior, rather odd – but it seemed like a good position for her husband, so she said nothing. At the end of the evening, Stewart returned the Dahls to their home. Shortly afterward, he informed them that Mrs. Rowan’s husband had died and the cook was no longer needed.
Sanford explained that Stewart scrapped his plan to murder the Dahls and abduct their sons because he was afraid of being caught.

Escape #1

Stewart had threatened to hunt him down and kill him if he ever ran away, Sanford told his sister.
Jessie didn’t challenge her uncle during the week she stayed at the ranch. She played her cards slowly and carefully, aware that any misstep could be fatal. Two bullet holes in the wall of the bedroom she slept in served as reminders of Stewart’s volatility.
Though he didn’t trust her entirely, Stewart confided in his niece at least once. He told her he wanted to make his mechanic’s son his “new darling” because Sanford’s voice was beginning to change.
On August 2nd, Jessie left the ranch to spend her last two weeks in California with George and Louise in L.A. She took Sanford with her and sent him to the home of a friend. George assisted them in the secret escape plot. He clearly didn’t approve of what was going on at the ranch, but was afraid to openly defy his own deranged son and wife. When Stewart and Lewis headed off to the ranch with a large load of firewood, he commented to Jessie that they were going to “destroy their evidence….I told them they could do their own dirty work.” (3, 81)
The very next day, when Stewart learned his nephew was gone, he was angry enough to brandish a gun at his father. George broke down and revealed Sanford’s location.
Sanford was immediately driven back to the ranch by his uncle.

Escape #2

One week later, on a Sunday, George and Jessie made another attempt to spring Sanford. Stewart had said he was going to be in San Diego for the day, and Louise was out of the house, so they seized this chance to drive out to the ranch.
Louise had beaten them there. Stewart was there, as well. They had apparently laid a trap. During the ensuing confrontation, Jessie announced her intention to take Sanford home to Canada. Stewart punched her in the face. Later, he explained to her that Sanford couldn’t leave because he had shot a miner who was robbing another miner. A little boy had witnessed this, and he and Sanford had been forced to eliminate the witness.

Escape #3

The day she was scheduled to return to Canada, Jessie made one last attempt to free her brother. Stewart had ordered Sanford to take a cab from their grandparents’ house back to the ranch, but Jessie secretly instructed him to go a nearby fruit market instead, and she would try to pony up the money for a bus ticket out of the city. George assured Jessie he could come up with the money. She left the U.S. believing – hoping – that Sanford would soon be on his way home, too.

He wasn’t. At the end of August, Jessie received a telegram from George, saying he would bring Sanford to Canada in six weeks. It turned out that he had taken Sanford to the bus station, only to encounter Stewart there. Furious, Stewart again reclaimed his nephew and hauled him to the ranch.

Stewart

Why did everyone bow to Stewart Northcott’s wishes? He was like the boy in the Twilight Zone episode who threatens to send his family “out to the cornfield” with his paranormal powers unless they go out of their way to amuse and placate him.
Sanford, George, and Jessie were fearful of Stewart, with good reason. Louise’s motive for cooperating with her son’s plans might have been quite different, though. At her son’s trial, she declared he was the only person in the world who had ever shown her any love. In return, she offered an almost slavish devotion to his whims.

George and Louise married in their native Ontario in 1886, when they were both very young. A few years later they had Winnifred. Five other children didn’t survive, including a 5-year-old boy named Willie. Stewart was born in Bladworth, Saskatchewan, in 1906 or 1907, the same year Winnifred married John Clark and settled on a farm in the area.

Years later, reporters covering Stewart’s murder trial would make much of his “effeminate” traits, and there were rumours that Louise had dressed and treated him as a girl until he was 12 years old. No evidence bears this out. The descriptions of Stewart as both a hairy “Ape Man” and a “broad-shouldered coquettish girl” seem to stem from the abhorrence for his same-sex orientation. The prosecution actually made note of this more often than the fact that Stewart was a pedophile and a sexual predator.

At this time, George was probably considered the ne’er-do-well of his family. He toiled on small farms or did construction work while two of his brothers ran successful medical practices. Then, in 1919, Ephraim Northcott accidentally killed a young nurse during a backroom abortion and was sentenced to prison, where he passed away in July 1928. He died without learning that he wasn’t the only killer in the family.

In 1913, after living in Edmonton for a time, the Northcotts settled in Vancouver. They would reside there until illegally immigrating to California in 1924.

In the winter of 1918, according to family members, Stewart slipped on some ice and cracked his head, resulting in minor hemorrhaging and a period of delusion (for weeks he believed Louise was dead, even though she was right in front of his eyes). He was never quite the same. Louise stated at his trial that a family doctor in Edmonton told her his mind had never been “just right”.
But he retained an average or even above-average intellect. He appreciated classical music, and as a teenager in Vancouver he played piano in a movie house and conducted a small jazz orchestra at a cafe.

At Stewart’s trial, George Northcott admitted he was terrified of his own son, who abused him after years of being not simply spoiled but ruined by Louise. Louise always encouraged his behaviour, bringing him up to treat his father like an “old fool”. George described himself as “the family football”, and that was exactly the impression he left on everyone – a meek old man, disgusted by his son’s tyranny but far too cowed to do anything about it.

Stewart was a pathological liar. When he rented the shack in Mint Valley, near Saugus, the same month Walter Collins was killed, he told the owners he was a journalist. They were made extremely nervous by this strange man who toted around two pistols and a box he wouldn’t allow anyone to touch. He spoke knowingly about a gruesome child murder that had taken place in L.A. the previous December. William Edward Hickman, 19 years old, abducted the 12-year-old daughter of a former employer and had the girl, Marion Parker, write letters to her father to assure him she was safe. These were accompanied by dramatic ransom demands from Hickman, signed “The Fox”. Mr. Parker arranged to meet The Fox in an isolated spot to hand over the money. Hickman pulled up alongside Parker in his car, grabbed the money, then drove a short distance before dumping Marion’s limp body beside the road. Her arms and legs had been removed, her eyelids stitched open.
One month before Walter Collins disappeared, Hickman was found guilty and sentenced to death.
Stewart commented to the cabin owner’s wife that Hickman “didn’t know how to put over a first-class murder.” (3, 59)

Walter?

With her husband serving a sentence for robbery in Folsom Prison, Christine Collins was essentially a single mother, renting rooms in a modest home in the Mount Washington area, working as a phone operator.
Convinced that her son could be alive, she paid close attention to sightings of Walter that were reported from all over California throughout the summer of 1928. There were numerous reports that an “Italian-looking” man and woman had been seen loitering in the Collins’ neighborhood in the days before Walter disappeared, and a few people claimed to have seen Walter in the presence of a similar “foreign” couple. A particularly chilling sighting was reported by a gas station attendant in Glendale who was quite certain he had seen Walter’s limp, possibly lifeless, body in the backseat of a car that pulled into his station.

There was also a promising sighting of the Winslow brothers: A traveling salesman in New Braunfels, Texas, believed he had given a ride to the two boys sometime in June. Later events proved this to be a false sighting. The boys’ father had also received the letters Stewart had forced Lewis and Nelson to write, informing him they were heading for Mexico. Incidents like these fed Christine Collins’ belief that Walter was still alive.

Walter Collins Sr. and some police officers, on the other hand, suspected that former inmates had killed his boy in retaliation for something he had done, and a Los Angeles Times article darkly hinted that Mrs. Collins might have gotten on the wrong side of some criminals while trying to “negotiate her husband’s release”. This was an ominous foreshadowing to the scapegoating of Mrs. Collins, but no one could possibly have foreseen what was about to occur.

In August, a young boy was brought into the police station in Dekalb, Illinois, after he was found wandering alone. He gave his name as Arthur Kent, and told police his father had abandoned him. He hinted that he had lived in Hollywood and Los Angeles, but refused to betray his father by providing any further details.
Authorities placed him temporarily with a farmer. Illinois State Police officer O.N. Larson grew convinced that the boy was really Walter Collins, and his suspicions seemed to be borne out when the boy finally admitted it. In the excitement of finding Walter, no one dwelt too heavily on the question of why the boy would deny his own identity for several weeks.
Mrs. Collins immediately sent $70 of her own money to Dekalb for train fare, while the LAPD stage-managed a publicized reunion that could finally redeem the police in the public’s eye. Photographers mobbed the platform as Walter, looking remarkably healthy after his long ordeal, stepped off the train and was guided to his anxiously waiting mother.
But there was to be no joyful reunion. Christine Collins knew at once that this boy was not her son, though he somewhat resembled Walter in age, build, and colouring. She informed LAPD Captian J.J. Jones of this immediately. Utterly unwilling to see his golden PR coup destroyed, Captain Jones firmly assured Mrs. Collins the boy was Walter; he just looked a bit different after all he’d been through, that was all. Over her objections, he urged her to take the boy home with her. Ten days later, Mrs. Collins returned “Walter” to the police, even more adamant that he was not her child. For one thing, his teeth didn’t match Walter’s dental records – and the dentist had signed a statement to that effect. Captain Jones continued to insist the boy had to be Walter. Perhaps his abductor had brainwashed him into behaving differently and forgetting certain details about his life, he suggested.
Rather than admit the mistake and forfeit all that good publicity the police had received for “solving” the case, they maintained that Walter had passed tests to confirm his identity. To get rid of the evidence that the official LAPD position was crumbling, on September 8th Captain Jones had Mrs. Collins involuntarily committed to the county psychiatric ward under a “Code 12″ designation reserved for bothersome people. She was told that she was either mentally ill, or a bad mother trying to unload her son onto the state. She would not be allowed to leave until she admitted that the boy from Illinois was her child. Mrs. Collins bravely refused to bow to police pressure.
However, the police did question “Walter” more thoroughly once he was in state custody. He confessed he wasn’t really Walter, but Billy Fields. Then he admitted he was really Arthur Hutchens, a 12-year-old runaway from Iowa. He didn’t like living with his stepmother, Violet Hutchens, and his resemblance to Walter Collins had presented him with a golden opportunity to travel to California, where he hoped to meet movie cowboy Tom Mix. Arthur’s family had a connection to California; his father, J.S. Hutchens, had recently served time in San Quentin for sexual offenses against boys.
Christine Collins was quietly released from the psych hospital on September 15th.

Strangely, the clues to “Walter’s” real identity had been in plain sight all along. As reported by the Los Angeles Times on August 5, 1928, while Arthur was still staying at the farm near DeKalb, a man with bullet scars on his face had shown up while the boy was out. He appeared to be searching for someone, but merely asked for some food. He was soon identified as J.S. Hutchens. Told of the man’s visit, Arthur burst out, “That’s my daddy!”. Mr. Hutchens never reappeared. Police speculated that J.S. Hutchens had abducted Walter Collins upon his release from San Quentin, but were unable to locate him.

Then there was the fact that Sandford Clark had identified one of his uncle’s victims as Walter Collins. The juvenile officers who questioned Sanford accepted this story at first, but when Walter turned up alive in Illinois they concluded that Sanford must be mistaken…or lying. The Los Angeles Times noted this “perplexing paradox” on September 16th, even adding that Jessie Clark corroborated her brother’s account of the murders. He had told her all about the murder of Walter Collins when she visited the ranch in July.

Escape #4

With Jessie back in Canada, Stewart knew he was on borrowed time. He began selling off his possessions as though preparing for flight.

He didn’t know that it was already too late. Jessie had promptly reported her brother’s abuse to the American consulate in Vancouver. She may have mentioned the murders, but if so that information was not imparted to the two LAPD officers and the two immigration officials dispatched to the ranch. They believed they were just checking on a couple of young Canadian men who were living in the country illegally.
On August 31st, as Stewart, Sanford, and the mechanic’s son were loading furniture at the ranch, the two immigration inspectors arrived. Stewart immediately ran off into the desert, leaving Sanford to be taken to Juvenile Hall for questioning.

Within two days of being taken into custody, Sanford told investigators that Stewart had removed him from his parents’ home in Canada two years earlier, when he was 13, and had been abusing him physically and sexually since that time. He also made the startling revelation that Stewart had murdered several young boys with an axe and buried their bodies on the ranch. He also claimed Gordon had killed a man on the highway near Saugus on March 10, two days before the St. Francis Dam disaster. (The murder of the young Mexican man, as we’ve seen, actually took place on the first day of February. Whether Sanford was referring to this murder or to a second, unverified, crime is unclear).
Sanford picked the Winslow boys and Walter Collins out of a stack of 30 photographs. Walter, he said, had been killed about a week after his abduction. The Winslow boys had been killed with blows from an axe, and Sanford himself was forced to kill the younger boy, Nelson, on threat of death.

Incredibly, Stewart evaded authorities with the aid of a city judge, H.S. Farrell of Alhambra. He simply showed up at the man’s office on August 31st and gave him a long story about how he was trying to bring up his nephew with Catholic principles, while his immoral sister was trying to pry the boy away from him. The judge refused to intervene directly in the matter, but he obligingly drove Stewart to the home of a lawyer, then to George and Louise’s house.

Stewart fled to Vancouver, beyond the reach of immigration officials, on his attorney’s advice. A few days later, Louise quit her job as a laundress at L.A. General Hospital and followed, leaving George alone in California. One has to wonder if he was relieved to finally be free of these two insane people for a while.

In a room of the ranch house, investigators found a book that had been checked out of the Pomona public library by one of the Winslow brothers. Some of their Boy Scout badges and a hat belonging to Lewis were also found on the ranch, along with a bloodstained mattress and axes encrusted with blood and human hair.

Jessie and her family had no idea what was happening until September 8th. On that day, Jessie and a friend were walking in Vancouver, en route to a job interview. Suddenly they ran into her grandmother and Uncle Stewart, who informed her that Sanford was about to be deported back to Canada. Jessie quickly summoned her mother to Vancouver, but soon after Winnifred’s arrival, the news broke that Stewart was wanted on suspicion of murder.

Even though Sanford had told his story to the authorities two days after he was taken into custody, they were initially skeptical. He wasn’t questioned fully until September 14th.
He led police to two gravesites near his uncle’s chicken coop, where the partial skeletonized remains of three children were found on September 17th. These proved to be the remains of the Winslow brothers and parts of the unidentified Mexican man. In all, 51 human body parts were found on the ranch.
Sanford implicated his grandmother in Walter’s murder. He said she neither participated in nor witnessed the Winslow murders, but knew all about them.

On September 19th, Louise Northcott was taken into custody on a train in Calgary. Stewart was arrested on a train in Vernon, B.C. (interestingly, the final destination of two California boys who briefly fooled authorities into believing they had been raised in the wilderness). On the train ride back to California, Stewart initiated a pattern that would become familiar to everyone who encountered him in the next two years: He alternated between indignantly protesting his innocence and sanity, and making bizarre confessions to Riverside County deputy district attorney Earl Redwine.
Three days later a grand jury in Riverside County returned five indictments against Stewart: four counts of murder, and one of sodomy. Louise was named in an indictment for the murder of Walter Collins.

On September 23rd, Christine Collins threw a 10th birthday party for her missing son.

In Riverside County Jail, Stewart alternated between declaring total innocence and implicating everyone in his family. He was allowed to meet with Sanford, who was in hospital, and demanded the boy confess. When that didn’t work, he tried to sweet-talk him into confessing. Sanford stood his ground. So did George. Louise was still in Canada, fighting extradition.
Stewart continued to make sporadic confessions. At one point he said he had killed 9 people, and would “play crazy” in court – only he would keep it up longer than Edward Hickman, who had been caught feigning insanity when he wrote letters about his ruse to another prisoner. Stewart even said he had once had a brother named Richard, whom George had killed when he was 9 or 10 years old. There was no such brother.
In addition to fake confessions, Stewart took great delight in leading the police on wild goose chases all over the desert, pointing out “graves” that turned out to be nonexistent. The full remains of his victims were never located.
There are indications that Stewart savored his infamy. For all his bitter complaints about the media, he never declined an interview. He talked at length about his love of music, his chickens, his philosophy of life.

In October, William Hickman was executed for the murder of Marian Parker. Knowing that his role model died at the end of a rope couldn’t have been a comfort to Stewart.

In December, as Stewart’s trial date neared, Louise Northcott made two very strange confessions that remain rather baffling. First, she confessed to police that she had murdered all of the boys, including Walter Collins. She said she had killed the Mexican in self-defense. Later, she altered her confession to minimize her own participation in the crimes. She claimed that Sanford had killed Lewis Winslow and severely beaten Nelson, so Louise shot him merely to end his misery. Sanford also bashed in Walter’s head, and she had to put him out of his misery as well. Then Sanford and Jessie, who despised her son, framed Stewart for everything. Louise was perfectly willing to sacrifice her grandchildren to save her beloved boy. Unluckily for her, Redwine didn’t buy much of the story. While the entire family had some involvement in what had become known as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, this was obviously just Louise’s desperate attempt to keep Stewart from being convicted.
Whether authentic or not, however, her confession to the murder of Walter Collins stood up in court because it was corroborated by Sanford’s testimony. She pled guilty and was handed a life sentence.

The second confession was far stranger, and as it couldn’t possibly have helped Stewart in any way, Louise’s reasons for giving it remain unclear. She may have been trying to feign insanity, or she may actually have been insane.
Louise had summoned Earl Redwine to her cell to “confess” that she wasn’t Stewart’s real mother. She explained that at 17 she met and secretly married an English lord. The same day, she realized that the marriage would be a “detriment to his career” and urged him to go home and fulfill his obligations. Two years later, she bigamously wed George Northcott. Then, in 1906, the lord unexpectedly returned to Canada and swept Louise away to live with him. Three days later he died of heart failure. She returned to George only to learn that he had impregnated their daughter in her brief absence. She stuck to this story throughout Stewart’s trial.

Stewart showed no gratitude for his mother’s efforts to save him. Reading an overwrought letter from her, he commented that he didn’t like her and had always considered her crazy.

Trial

Stewart Gordon Northcott stood trial in Riverside County in January 1929 for the murders of the Winslow brothers and the unidentified Mexican man, whom he referred to at that time as “Alvin Gothea”. Despite his signed confessions, he pled not guilty to all three murders, then proceeded to put on an extremely weird defense, firing three attorneys before deciding to represent himself. He accused the sheriff of plotting to kill him, swore at the prosecutor, talked at great length about a disease that had stricken his chickens, and questioned himself on the witness stand.
Things got even stranger when Louise was summoned to testify on her son’s behalf. On the witness stand, she publicly declared for the first time that Gordon was not her son, but her grandson. If she and Stewart thought this would provoke sympathy for him, they were wrong. It actually made Stewart’s sexual abuse of Sanford even more appalling, because Sanford was now not just a family member, but his half-brother. Oddly, Stewart had freely admitted to sodomizing his nephew. He said he didn’t know it was inappropriate to have sexual relations with his nephew/brother until authorities explained it to him, despite his supposedly devout Catholicism and the fact that he had brought a Bible with him from Canada.

There were also allegations, from Stewart, that George had repeatedly raped him when he was a child. “I could not help it I was brought into the world. I did not ask to be brought in. I was not responsible for the sins of these people before me.” (3, 199)
George Northcott denied it all. In fact, though he was testifying  on behalf of his son, his testimony was extraordinarily damaging to Stewart. George admitted he had seen some of the bodies before Stewart destroyed them with lime, lye, fire, and an axe. He had even bragged about the murders to his father. Only a few months earlier, George had insisted that Stewart had always been a “good boy” who displayed no “abnormal tendencies”.
On the stand, he explained that Louise would say anything to defend her son. He was “her god”.

Louise demonstrated this amply in court. During questioning, she told Stewart, “You are the only one that has ever brought any joy or happiness to my old gray life and has used me right and given me any love.” (3, 202)

The most damaging testimony came, of course, from Sanford Clark. Combined with the physical evidence, it convinced a jury that Stewart Northcott was guilty after just a few hours of deliberation. Stewart was convicted of all counts.

After his conviction, Stewart wrote George out of his personal history by telling prison officials that his father died in an insane asylum before his trial. This, despite the fact that George had pled for leniency on his son’s behalf, arguing that Stewart shouldn’t be executed because he was obviously “of unsound mind.”

Mr. Winslow knew he had a limited amount of time in which to get Stewart to reveal where his boys were buried. On February 10th, he assembled a posse of about 100 men. They drove caravan-style to to Riverside County Jail and surrounded the building while Winslow demanded they be allowed to remove Stewart from his cell and force him to reveal the location of the bodies. The sheriff and his men managed to calm Winslow and send him away; the other men dispersed on their own.

On February 13, 1929, Judge George R. Freeman sentenced Northcott to execution by hanging. He was then transferred to San Quentin’s death row, where he continued to make sporadic confessions. Just before his transfer, he admitted to 11 murders and hinted he was responsible for many more – but he wasn’t the only one responsible. “There are others whom I could expose, if anything could be gained by that.” (3, 226) Months later, believing he was going to die from appendicitis, he confessed in “revolting” detail to the warden’s assistant, Clinton Duffy (destined to become a famous prison reformer). Stewart added unlikely new details: That he had trafficked and killed up to 20 young boys, holding them at his ranch for prominent citizens to abuse. He said he was assisted by two ranch hands that he had never mentioned before.
He provided some names, and an investigation was launched, but no evidence of a child sex ring was found. Sanford hadn’t seen any strangers at the ranch; the only child molester there was his uncle. Neighbours knew that Sanford was being beaten and kept out of school, so they probably would have noticed the continuous comings and goings of well-heeled strangers. They hadn’t. And the two ranch hands didn’t exist – no one had seen them, no one knew of them.
As he had done so many times before, Stewart later recanted these confessions and insisted that he had killed no one.

Meanwhile, the LAPD had not heard the last of Christine Collins. With the help of social crusader and beloved Presbyterian minister Gustav Briegleb and a prominent attorney who was willing to work pro bono, Sammy “S.S.” Hahn, she sued Captain J.J. Jones for unlawful confinement, and was awarded a large settlement.
The case brought police abuse of the Code 12 designation to public attention, but it didn’t result in any real changes to the force. Captain Jones quietly retired without being censured in any way by his superiors, still a captain.
Mrs. Collins continued to fight for payment of her settlement into the 1940s. She wished to put the money into her search for Walter.

Stewart also gained at least one supporter. A preacher known as Larry “Cyclone Evangelist” Newgent became Stewart’s spiritual mentor at San Quentin, and argued to California governor C.C. Young that Stewart deserved a new trial because the first one had been “absolutely unfair”. Stewart had evidently convinced him that he hadn’t been allowed to retain a lawyer.

Stewart was originally scheduled to be executed in April, 1929, but a sickly lawyer delayed the appeals process into 1930. The execution date was moved to October 2, 1930.

In a September 29th interview with the press, Louise claimed she had been very ill with flu when she confessed to Walter’s murder. She declared that no one was ever killed at the ranch.
Stewart showed no such familial loyalty. Around the time his mother gave her interview, he wrote to Christine Collins and to the Winslows, promising them that if they visited him at San Quentin, he could tell them everything about the murders of their children.
Mrs. Collins visited on September 30th, just before Stewart was moved to a small holding cell reserved for inmates in the days before their executions. Questioned by Mrs. Collins and warden James Holohan, Stewart said Sanford had killed the boys. Asked where the bodies were buried, he replied, “Ask Mother.”
Yet in a letter to his parents penned on the day of his execution, Stewart assured them he knew they were innocent – Sanford was the sole killer in the family. He signed himself, “Your frightened lonely little boy.”

Mrs. Collins was not discouraged by Stewart’s revelations. She said that until her boy’s body was found, “I’ll cling to hope.” (3, 249)

On October 1st, Mrs. Winslow arrived at the prison. For four hours Stewart refused to see her. He spent this part of his last full day of life in a seemingly jocular, relaxed mood, telling jokes to the guards on suicide watch and continuously playing “Song of Songs” on a phonograph. When he finally agreed to meet with Mrs. Winslow, he said the boys were buried in a ravine about 100 years from his ranch house. But he still insisted they had been killed by Sanford and buried by Louise.
After the meeting, he lapsed into a strange daze, staring into space and utterly ignoring everyone.

The next morning, after writing the letter to his parents (in which he denied all confessions), Stewart staged a dramatic “suicide attempt”, pretending he had swallowed some poison capsules. No one thought he had actually poisoned himself, but his stomach was pumped anyway. So close to the end of his life, he couldn’t resist taking another jab at the man who had tried to save him: He said his father had given him the pills during a prison visit.
The final jab came a few hours later. Stewart gave one last “confession”, this time admitting that he and Sanford buried the bodies… but George had killed Walter. Louise had helped them clean up evidence after all four murders.

He went to the gallows that evening still maintaining his innocence. He asked to be blindfolded before ascending the steps (the first condemned man to do so at San Quentin, according to news reports of the time). His jovial mood of the previous day had vanished completely. He asked, “Will it hurt?”, and pled for his life until the very second the cord was cut to spring the trapdoor.

Aftermath

Some of the other figures in the case didn’t fare much better than Gordon Stewart Northcott. Christine Collins’ attorney, Sammy Hahn, committed suicide in 1957 by tying concrete blocks around his neck and jumping into the pool at his cabin in Tick Canyon.
In his heyday he had been one of California’s most prominent attorneys, defending the famous evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson when she was under investigation for allegedly staging her own abduction in 1926, as well as representing Louise Peete, a conwoman and former prostitute who left a string of suicides, suspicious deaths, and murders in her wake for over 40 years before becoming one of only three women ever executed in the state of California.

Sanford Clark was released from the State Industrial School for Boys in Whittier, California, in January 1931. He was deported to Canada, and settled in his hometown of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
In 1935 he married. He and wife June later adopted two little boys. During WWII he served with the 21st Battery, 6th Field Regiment of the Royal Canadian Artillery. He worked for the postal service until suffering a major heart attack in the ’70s. He died in 1991, leaving behind numerous grandchildren and a lifetime of quiet community service. Those closest to him say he rarely discussed his experiences on the ranch.

After Stewart Northcott’s execution, the town of Wineville officially changed its name to Mira Loma in an effort to erase the infamy created by the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Only a few streets and one park retain the original name. The ranch itself was dismantled and the land redeveloped.

George Northcott moved to the little town of Parsonsburg, Maryland, where he lobbied for his wife to be paroled. In November 1935 he wrote to prison authorities that there wasn’t any evidence the boys had even been murdered. “In the last year, one of the alleged victims has turned up.” The only evidence was the testimony of an “alleged accomplice, who was of low mentality and a dime magazine, wild-west-reading-fiend.” (3, 252) It’s impossible to know if George believed this crap or if he was simply adopting the family line that Sanford and Jessie cooked up a crazy story out of jealousy and spite . What is clear is that George, for some reason, still loved the wife who had defamed him on the witness stand. He wrote, “I want her, I need her – no better wife ever lived than Louise Northcott.” (3, 253) Even after seeing bodies at the ranch, even after being accused of raping his own son and impregnating his own daughter, even after being told about his son’s final confession, George declared he would always consider his son innocent. Stewart was “simply batty”, his mind “warped, unbalanced”. (3, 249)
In June 1940, having served just 11 years of her life sentence, 71-year-old Louise Northcott joined her husband on his Maryland farm. For the next four years, until their deaths, the Northcotts argued that Louise’s sentence should be overturned due to the “lack of evidence” against her. This was denied. In fact, some of the principals in the case, including prosecutor Earl Redwine and Judge O.K. Morton, who had said to her after passing down a life sentence, “It is only because you are a woman that I do not sentence you to be hanged”, were outraged that Louise had been paroled. (3, 140)

Arthur Hutchens, despite his troubled past, led a more stable life after his California excursion. Confined to Iowa’s State Training School for Boys until he reached the age of 14, he worked as a carnival concessioneer before settlling down in California to train horses and be a jockey – his lifelong passion. He married, fathering a daughter who grew up idolizing her adventurous dad. He died in 1954.

Contrary to the media hype surrounding The Changeling, the Collins/Code 12 scandal did not leave any significant mark on the LAPD. It didn’t even result in signficant changes to the force. The only result of the case was validation of citizen’s complaints about the lawlessness of the LAPD, which had been minimized or ignored by the city’s establishment for years. The gun squad was disbanded in the early ’30s, but official corruption flourished throughout the ’30s under Mayor Frank Shaw - notable for being the first U.S. mayor recalled from public office.
In the ’40s, the spirit of the gun squad was resurrected in an equally lawless Gangster Squad.
In the ’50s, a Red Squad charged with targeting suspected Communists behaved exactly like the gun squad of the Prohibition era. As one police commissioner said of the Red Squad, “The more the police beat them up and wreck their headquarters, the better. Communists have no Constitutional rights and I won’t listen to anyone who defends them.” (1)
The 1990s saw an avalanche of LAPD scandals. First there was the beating of Rodney King and the ensuing riots, then the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) incidents in which more than 70 officers were implicated in “unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of evidence, framing of suspects, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and covering up evidence of these activities”. (2)

In the film The Changeling, Mrs. Collins’ hope of finding her son alive is buoyed by the discovery that “David Clay”, a would-be victim of Northcott, managed to escape from the ranch and remain in hiding for years, fearful that he would be blamed for the possible murders of the boys who were confined with him – including Walter Collins. This character is apparently based on a young man who surfaced sometime in 1933 or 1934, a runaway presumed to be a victim of Northcott. I have been unable to find the name of this person, but we do know that he was not one of the Winslow brothers. It’s likely that any young boy who disappeared from the L.A. region during the late 1920s was considered a possible victim of Stewart Northcott.

Christine Collins remarried, but she had no more children and continued to believe that Walter could be alive somewhere. She rejected the confessions of Mrs. Northcott, Stewart Northcott, and Sanford Clark as too contradictory. Curiously, there is no mention of Louise in The Changeling.
While the film admirably highlights the tenacity of a mother’s love, its hopeful conclusion belies the much grimmer facts of the case.

A note on sources:
- Larry Harnisch, a blogger at the L.A. Times online, has posted copies of some of the original Times news stories on the Collins case (including the train station photo recreated in The Changeling). This article is drawn primarily from these articles and James Jeffrey Paul’s exhaustively researched book on the Northcott murders, Nothing Is Strange With You. Many other details were drawn from sources cited in the Wikipedia entry for the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The details of S.S. Hahn’s death come from an article in the June 26, 1957 L.A. Times (available on this page of Harnisch’s blog).

Other sources:
1. official LAPD website history page, 1926-1950 (link)
2. Wikipedia entry on the Rampart scandal (link)
3. Paul, James Jeffrey. Nothing Is Strange With You. Xlibris, 2008.

Posted by SME at 1:48 AM

Internet Blogging Assignment #4: Due Tuesday October 20, 2009

October 13, 2009 schnurbush 97 comments

Instructions: 

For your internet blogging assignment #4, please read through the following information regarding the “Castle Doctrine” and the brief summary I included about the movie Felon, which we viewed in class on Tuesday October 13, 2009.  After your read the information, read and respond to all five questions at the bottom of this post.  When you respond to the questions, please be sure to number each response.  Your internet blogging assignment #4 is due by the time your class begins on Tuesday October 20, 2009 in order to be considered for full points.  Please post your responses here on the blogging site just as you would any other blogging assignment.

Information:

According to the Castle Doctrine, a concept that emerged from English Common Law, citizens are justified in using deadly force to defend their “castle”, which includes in many states their dwelling (home) and in some states, their workplace and their personal vehicle.  Under the Castle Doctrine, if an intruder threatens or attacks a person or persons in their “castle”, if deadly force is used, it may be defined as “justifiable homicide” because the killing occurred during an act of self-defense.

According to Holmes & Holmes (1998)*, justifiable homicide differs from state to state within the United States.

States where neither the dwelling nor the property can be protected by the Castle Doctrine by an intruder include:  Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. 

 States where the dwelling can be protected but the property cannot be protected include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington D.C., Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

States where both the dwelling and the property can be protected by the Castle Doctrine include the following:  Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Montana and New Mexico.

States where the dwelling can be protected but there is no specific reference to whether or not the property can be protected include the following:  Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont.

 There is no law on the books in Ohio stating whether or not a person can use deadly force if threatened or attacked by an intruder in their own dwelling or on their property in the State of Ohio.

*Note:  Because of the date of the Holmes publication, some of the states listed above may have changed their laws regarding self-defense/justifiable homicide when threatened or attacked in their dwelling or on their property.  The above list is included to provide a rough idea of how much the justifiable homicide/Castle Doctrine laws differ across the United States .

 Other caveats included in the Castle Doctrine is that an intruder must be physically within the dwelling, acting illegally, the occupants of the home must have a reasonable belief that the intruder is going to inflict bodily harm or kill the occupants or that the intruder is going to commit some other felony act such as rape, robbery or arson, the occupant of the home (owner or renter) must not have provoked the intruder into their felony act and in some states, the occupant of the dwelling and/or property may need to make all reasonable means to “retreat” from the pending danger, thus leaving killing the intruder as the “course of last resort”.  In other words, because of the situation, the occupant had a reasonable belief that their life, and/or the lives of other occupants, were in danger and did not believe there was any other way to resolve the situation than to kill the intruder.

 Summary of Felon:

A loving husband and father finds his promising future transformed into a waking nightmare when he’s convicted of involuntary manslaughter after accidentally killing the burglar who broke into his home in this gritty prison drama starring Stephen Dorff and Val Kilmer. Wade Porter (Dorff) would have done anything to protect his family, and when they were threatened he did what any caring family man would have done. But somehow everything went wrong, and now Wade has been sentenced to spend three years in a maximum-security prison. It’s a place where the rules of society have been all but forgotten, and in addition to sharing a cell with a notorious mass murderer (Kilmer), Wade somehow incurs the wrath of the sadistic head prison guard (Harold Perrineau). Now, in order to survive the series of vicious beatings orchestrated for the amusement of the guards, Wade realizes that in order to survive the block and get back to his family he will have to become the toughest felon of them all. But even if Wade does manage to live through this harrowing ordeal, what will be left of that loving family man once he’s finally released back into civilized society?

Summary written by:  Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide (Retrieved 10/13/09 from http://www.fandango.com/felon_v453379/summary)

 Questions:

In the movie Felon, in an attempt to protect his family from an intruder, Wade Porter chased an intruder out of the family dwelling and hit the intruder once on the head with a baseball bat.  Although Wade stated to the police investigator he swung for the intruder’s shoulder, the intruder “ducked”, thereby causing Wade’s swing to make full contact with the back of the intruder’s head, instantly killing the intruder. 

1.  Should it matter whether or not Wade had the “intention” to kill the intruder when he said he swung for the shoulder and instead hit the intruder’s head?  (Does where Wade swung the bat at on the intruder’s body make a difference as to whether or not the killing was classified as “murder” or “justifiable homicide”, or does only the point of impact and resulting injury matter?

2.  Using the information provided by Holmes & Holmes (1998) above, what would happen to Wade Porter in a court the State of Florida?  How about in the State of Montana?

3.  What part of the movie Felon interested you the most?  Why?

4.  Do you believe situations seen in the movie Felon can happen today, or do you believe “Hollywood” is portrayed in order to give the movie more interest to the viewers?  Be sure to provide at least one scene from the movie to explain your answer to this question.

5.  Why do you believe the movie Felon was chosen to be viewed during our class?

Family of Beaten Teen Hope for Healing after Death

October 1, 2009 schnurbush 42 comments

(CNN) – The family of a Chicago teenager whose beating death was caught on video hope that the attention the incident has garnered will spur healing locally, a relative said at a news conference Wednesday evening.

Derrion Albert, 16, was beaten to death last week. His death was captured on video.

Derrion Albert, 16, was beaten to death last week. His death was captured on video.

“It should’ve never happened, but it’s never too late,” said Rose Braxton, great-aunt of 16-year-old Derrion Albert. “It’s time for healing to start getting our communities together so this won’t happen to anyone else’s child ever again.”

Four suspects have been charged with first-degree murder in the September 24 killing of Albert, and police say they are looking for three more people in connection with the beating captured on videotape.

Prosecutors said that Albert, an honors student, was an innocent bystander who ended up in the middle of a street fight between two factions of students from Fenger High School.

The incident caught the attention of the White House, too.

The footage of the incident, which shows Albert being hit by a railroad tie, “is “chilling” and one of the most shocking things “you can ever see,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday.

President Obama’s concern over the killing didn’t provide additional comfort to the family, “but I’m glad that it’s out there so everyone can see it and they know that, yes, this is happening,” Braxton said.

“This was vicious. How do you just come out and decide that you’re going to attack someone with a two-by-four?” Braxton said.

She spoke to reporters together with area community and church leaders.

“Maybe this will wake up and shake up people,” the Rev. Jesse Jackson said at the press conference, noting that three teens were killed in Chicago this week.

Braxton said her message to the White House was simply, “Do something.”

“We need to get to our children,” she said. “Why are they so angry, so full of venom, that you would even consider doing something like that to another human being?”

Albert’s funeral was scheduled for Saturday at 10 a.m. at Greater Mount Hebron Baptist Church in Chicago.

An amateur videotape shot by a witness, which has been broadcast widely, showed the attack unfolding. A local TV station that received the tape turned it over to police.

When school let out at 2:50 p.m. on Thursday, Albert was on his way to a bus stop when two groups of students converged on the street, said Tandra Simonton, spokeswoman for the Cook County States Attorney.

The factions, one that lived near the Altgeld Gardens housing development and one in an area known as “The Ville,” began fighting after an earlier shooting that police called gang-related.

According to Simonton, Albert was approached by two members of “The Ville” faction and struck in the head with a long wooden railroad tie, then punched in the face.

After being briefly knocked unconscious, Albert regained consciousness and tried to move from the fight, but was then attacked by a second group of five members from the opposing faction, Simonton said.

Albert was taken to Roseland Community Hospital and then to Advocate Christ Hospital and Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis said he asked the U.S. Secret Service to try to enhance the video so that others involved in the fight can be identified.

Weis pleaded with anyone who may have information not to withhold it. “The culture of ‘no-snitch’ is unacceptable,” he said. “On Thursday, a young man with a promising future lost his life to senseless violence, yet few have come forward.”

Authorities are also considering charging people who participated in the fight but did not come into contact with Albert, he said.

Asked about the killing as Obama prepares to travel to Copenhagen, Denmark, to lobby the International Olympic Committee to award Chicago the 2016 Games, Gibbs described the videotape of the attack as “among the most shocking that you can ever see.”

“The killing of an honor student … who’s beaten to death, is chilling, chilling video,” Gibbs said.

Obama has emphasized parental responsibility in addressing chronic problems in low-income urban communities including school dropouts, drug use, gang activity and violence. Gibbs offered no explanation for the Chicago killing, saying, “in many ways a lot of these crimes are amazingly hard to explain.”

Whatever led to this specific attack, “you can’t regulate the hard issue,” Gibbs said.

“This is not a problem that government alone, as the president often says, at any level is going to be able to solve,” Gibbs said. “This is going to take community involvement, it’s going to take parental involvement, it’s going to take the involvement of everyone to address what is obviously a sad and shocking problem.”

Categories: murder Tags:

Convicted Murderers Whose Victims Weren’t Dead….???

Convicted murderers whose victims weren’t dead

  • Story Highlights
  • Some murder victims show up after suspects were convicted, sometimes executed
  • Jack Marion hung for murdering Jack Cameron, who left country to avoid marriage
  • John Perry’s family hung, victim returns 2 years later claiming he was abducted
  • Two brothers’ convictions overturned after ad in paper locates victim in another state
By Rob Lammle

(Mental Floss) — What do you do when you’ve just hanged someone for murder, and then their “victim” pops up alive and healthy a few towns away?

1. Not the Marion type

William Jackson Marion and Jack Cameron met at a Kansas boarding house in 1872. The two men became fast friends and traveling companions, using Cameron’s team of horses to go from place-to-place to find work.

Along their journey, the two made a brief stop in Beatrice, Nebraska to visit Marion’s in-laws before moving on. After a few days, however, Marion returned solo, sporting clothes that belonged to Cameron and driving Cameron’s horses. Then he left town again.

Weeks later, the body of a man was discovered with three bullet holes in his head. He was also wearing the same outfit that Cameron had worn the day he left town. Marion immediately became the prime suspect and a manhunt began. After 10 years of searching, Marion was finally captured in Kansas.

The trial and conviction of Jack Marion was seriously abbreviated. Marion’s verdict was read after just one hour of deliberation, and he was hanged for his crime on March 25, 1887.

Four years later, Jack Cameron reappeared looking for his old friend. Apparently, he had run to Mexico to avoid a shotgun wedding in Kansas, giving his horses and other possessions to Marion. Now he’d come back to reclaim them.

The story does end on a (slightly) positive note: Thanks to the work of Marion’s grandson, Elbert Marion, Nebraska governor Bob Kerrey granted Jack Marion a posthumous pardon in 1987, 100 years after his execution. Mental Floss: 11 notable presidential pardons

2. The Brothers Boorn

In May of 1812, when Richard Colvin vanished, speculation amongst the townspeople of Manchester, Vermont, was that his brothers-in-law, Jesse and Stephen Boorn, were responsible. Without evidence of foul play, though, no charges were pressed.

Seven years later, the Boorn Brothers’ uncle had a dream in which Richard said he’d been killed and his body buried in an old cellar on the Boorn farm. Upon excavation of the cellar, a penknife and a button were found, both identified as Richard’s. But the “evidence” still wasn’t enough to charge the Boorn Brothers. Soon after, when a barn on the Boorn farm burned to the ground, many believed it was arson to cover more evidence. But, again, no charges were filed.

Things finally came to a head, however, when a boy discovered bones under a tree near the Boorn home. While in custody, Jesse confessed that he and his brother had killed Richard. But before the trial began, a closer examination of the bones revealed they weren’t even human, but those of an animal. The prosecution carried on, however, for they had the damning testimony of Silas Merrill, a forger, who was Jesse’s cellmate.

Merrill said Jesse had implicated himself, Stephen, and their father in Colvin’s murder. His testimony mentioned the suspected locations of the crime — the cellar, the barn, and the tree — all fitting together in a neat little package. For his cooperation in the case, Silas was set free.

As the evidence mounted, Stephen confessed as well, telling the same story as Silas, but without implicating his father. The Boorn Brothers were convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1819. Jesse’s sentence would later be commuted to life in prison, but Stephen was set to hang.

Rather than sit idly by, Stephen placed an ad in different newspapers explaining his predicament. The ad included a description of Richard Colvin. Amazingly, the thing worked! Someone actually tracked Colvin down, who was alive and well in New Jersey.

The Boorn Brothers were released from prison and petitioned for compensation from the state. But because they had both confessed to the crime, they received nothing but their freedom. The Boorn case became the first documented wrongful murder conviction in American history. Mental Floss: 8 prolific female serial killers

3. She Gets Convicted

Zhang Zaiyu disappeared from Hubei Province in 1994. A few months later, a woman’s body was found in a lake and Zhang’s family identified it as their missing loved one. Her husband She Zaiyu was arrested for murder.

For 10 days, She was reportedly denied sleep and received severe beatings until he finally confessed to the crime. Once in court, She said the confession had been coerced and that he was not guilty. He was sentenced to death in late 1994, but four years later his sentence was reduced to 15 years because the courts felt there wasn’t sufficient evidence for the death penalty.

Then, in March of 2005, Zhang Zaiyu resurfaced in Hubei. Mrs. Zaiyu claimed to have suffered from mental illness and had wandered away from her home in 1994. She wound up in Shandong Province, living there and even marrying another man.

Her identity was confirmed through DNA testing and her first husband was released from prison 11 years after he had been convicted. He then sued the government and received 700,000 yuan (about $102,650) in compensation.

But more importantly, She’s case – and that of Teng Xingshan — helped bring about changes to the Chinese judicial system in 2005. Now, capital punishment cases are the sole authority of the Supreme People’s Court, which requires more oversight and investigation before executions are carried out.

4. The servant and the bloody shirt

On August 16, 1660, William Harrison left home in Campden, England, to do business in a nearby town. When he didn’t return, his servant, John Perry, went to look for him. Perry found Harrison’s shirt covered in blood, along with his hat, which had been slashed by a knife. Harrison, however, was nowhere to be found.

Authorities immediately suspected Perry, and likely tortured him for answers. He confessed to a conspiracy involving himself, his mother, and his brother. According to his statement, Perry claimed that it was his brother who had actually killed Harrison while attempting to rob him.

Despite the fact that all of Perry’s relatives proclaimed their innocence, the entire family was convicted and hanged. Mrs. Perry, who’d also been accused of being a witch, was hanged first.

Two years later, however, William Harrison returned to England claiming that he had been abducted, taken to Turkey, and sold into slavery. He escaped when his master died, and his return was publicly lauded.

While Perry’s trial didn’t do John Perry (or his family) much good, it did have an impact on future cases. John Perry’s story set a legal precedent in England – “no body, no crime” – that lasted for nearly 300 years.

5. The professional job

In April 1987, the dismembered body of a woman was dragged from the waters of the Mayang River in central Hunan Province. A young woman, Shi Xiaorong, had been declared missing shortly before the body was found, so police believed she was the victim.

According to authorities, the dismemberment looked “very professional”, so local butcher Teng Xinhshan became a prime suspect. It was speculated that Teng had sex with Shi and killed her when she tried to steal his money. Teng claimed he had never met Shi, but was found guilty and sentenced to death anyway. He was executed in 1989.

Then, in 1993, Shi Xiaorong reappeared saying that she had been tricked and sold into marriage in March 1987. When Teng’s relatives learned that Shi was still alive, they sued the judiciary. After the case was reopened, Shi testified that she had never even met Teng, and that he had obviously not killed her. Teng was posthumously exonerated in 2006.

6. Puppy love

In 1999, 14-year old Natasha Ryan vanished from her Queensland home. No body was ever found, and, after years of searching, her family presumed she was dead. Their fears were confirmed in 2002 when incarcerated serial killer, Leonard Fraser, was secretly recorded in his jail cell confessing that Natasha was one of his many victims.

In the middle of Fraser’s 2003 trial for the murder of four women, including Natasha Ryan, the authorities received a tip that Ryan had been living with her boyfriend, Scott Black, since her disappearance. They raided Black’s house, which was less than a half-mile away from her parents’ home, and found Natasha hiding in a wardrobe. The charges for Natasha’s murder were dropped, though Fraser was sentenced to multiple consecutive life sentences for the other three murders. Mental Floss: 5 celebrity kidnapping plots

As for Natasha and her boyfriend, he was sentenced to one year in prison for perjury for claiming he didn’t know Natasha’s whereabouts. He was also fined $3000 and had to pay $16,740 of the costs accrued by police while searching for Natasha. Natasha only had to pay $1,000 fine for causing a false police investigation, though she sold her story to Australian tabloids for much, much more.

The two married in 2008; both of Natasha’s parents attended the ceremony.

For more mental_floss articles, visit mentalfloss.com

Entire contents of this article copyright, Mental Floss LLC. All rights reserved.

All AboutMurder and HomicideCapital Punishment

Categories: murder Tags:

Quadriplegic child found dead in storage facility

April 23, 2009 schnurbush 27 comments

Quadriplegic child found dead in storage facility

  • Story Highlights
  • NEW: Child’s adoptive mother is in custody as a suspect, official says
  • Relatives told police they hadn’t seen Shylea Thomas in weeks
  • Child had “suffocation issue” in crib at 3 weeks of age, was quadriplegic
  • Body was found stuffed in trash bag, covered with mothballs

(CNN) — Michigan authorities are investigating whether foul play led to the death of a 9-year-old quadriplegic girl whose body was found inside a public storage facility.

“This is a very sad and tragic case that hurts all of us involved in the ongoing investigation,” Genesee County prosecutor David Leyton said at a news conference Wednesday.

Shylea Myza Thomas of Flint, Michigan, hadn’t been seen in six weeks, and relatives reported her missing Tuesday, Leyton’s office said. Her adoptive mother, who is also her aunt, is in custody as a suspect, special assistant prosecuting attorney John Potbury told CNN.

No charges have been filed pending the results of the autopsy, he said.

Because of her physical disabilities, Shylea used a feeding tube. She suffered from quadriplegia because of a “suffocation issue” in her crib at 3 weeks of age, Leyton said.

On Wednesday, Flint police found her body stuffed inside a garbage bag in a public storage facility in Vienna Township, near Flint, Leyton said. The bag was covered in mothballs “in an apparent attempt to mask odors from the dead body,” his office said in a news release.

“For her to have to live like that, and then to die and be stuffed into a bag and plastic bin in a storage facility, just breaks my heart,” the prosecutor said.

CNN affiliate WJRT reported that the suspect could face charges including murder, first-degree child abuse and welfare fraud.

The station also reported that investigators are trying to determine why the girl’s disappearance wasn’t reported until six weeks after she went missing.

Relatives told WJRT that they remember Shylea as a happy child, who loved music and whose smile was infectious. VideoWatch a family in shock »

“The last memory I actually have of Shylea is seeing her when she was in my care,” said her second cousin, Josette Thomas. “She was on the bed listening to the radio and smiling. Those are actually the memories I want to keep in my head. I don’t want that memory to leave me.”

He Did It! Said from the grave…

April 16, 2009 schnurbush 36 comments

She foresaw her own murder

Sunday, March 29th 2009, 4:00 AM

AP

Mark Jensen and wife Julie in happier times. Julie Jensen’s words in a letter to neighbor led to her husband’s murder conviction.

Two weeks before she died, the 40-year-old Wisconsin woman penned an ominous note that aimed an accusing finger at Mark Jensen, her husband of 14 years.

“If anything happens to me, he would be my first suspect,” she wrote.

“I pray I’m wrong nothing happens, but I am suspicious of Mark’s suspicious behaviors fear for my early demise.”

She sealed the letter and gave it to a neighbor, with instructions to pass it on to police should she die.

On Dec. 3, 1998, a few days after mysteriously falling ill, Julie Jensen’s fears came true. She died, leaving behind two sons, a toddler and a third-grader.

The cause was anything but natural. She had been poisoned with antifreeze.

Within days of his wife’s death, Mark Jensen was sharing his bed with another woman.

That detail and Julie Jensen’s letter from the grave seemed to make it an open-and-shut case – another love triangle murder fished from the deep pool of marriages fouled by a venal spouse.

But the wheels of justice would turn slowly.

High school sweethearts

Julie Griffin and Mark Jensen were high school sweethearts in Kenosha, on Lake Michigan midway between Chicago and Milwaukee.

He was an investment manager’s son, and she grew up in a blue-collar family with four brothers.

Julie studied nursing in college but quit when she realized she didn’t have the constitution for dealing with illness and death.

She married Mark in 1984 and went to work at her father-in-law’s investment firm while her husband built a career in construction. She got pregnant five years into the marriage, even though by her account Mark was not committed to raising offspring.

Not long after son David was born, Julie had a sexual fling with a co-worker. Mark Jensen discovered the brief affair, and the infidelity became a wedge in their relationship.

Julie filed for divorce soon after her affair but withdrew the petition, confiding in friends that she was committed to salvaging her “difficult” marriage.

In 1992, Julie Jensen became the target of an odd form of harassment.

Someone began to leave pornographic photographs in her car and around her home – in some cases breaking in simply to leave the smut. The Jensens were flabbergasted, although Mark said he suspected the photos were being left by the man with whom Julie had had the dalliance. She filed dozens of crime reports and had countless conversations about the porn with local cops, who questioned the ex-paramour and dismissed him as a suspect. Yet the incidents continued for more than five years. Despite a marriage that had begun to dissolve into what Julie called “polite superficial,” the couple managed to conceive a second son, Douglas, born in 1995.

Late in the summer of 1998, the wife-weary Mark Jensen began a relationship with a local woman named Kelly Labonte, who became Jensen’s lover just days after her own wedding.

The lovers went on sneak-aways to Chicago that fall, and by Thanksgiving Web-surfing footprints on Mark Jensen’s computer hinted at sinister thoughts. He began to research poisoning by ethylene glycol – automobile antifreeze.

At the same time, Jensen began telling his friends that his wife was depressed and possibly suicidal.

Julie Jensen, meanwhile, noticed her husband’s sudden interest in poisons, and one day she found a list of toxic substances scrawled into his day planner.

She told her friends that she was afraid to eat or drink anything her husband prepared for her, and she twice called police to report her fears.

A police friend suggested she leave home, but she decided to stay, believing it best for her sons. As a hedge, she composed her letter and gave it to neighbor Ted Wojt.

Less than two weeks later, she was dead.

Letter from the grave

Mark Jensen immediately found himself in the police magnifying glass as prime suspect. Detectives seized his computer and documented his obsession with antifreeze – particularly pertinent when the autopsy pinned Julie’s death on many doses of the deadly stuff, apparently mixed with juice.

But prosecutor Robert Jambois was reluctant to file murder charges based on circumstantial evidence alone, and he began a long fight to use Julie Jensen’s letter from the grave in court – a rarity in criminal law. Mark Jensen was finally charged with murder in March 2002. Later that year, he married the now-divorced Labonte, who gave birth to their son that year.

Another five years passed as defense attorney Craig Albee challenged the use of the letter. Judge Bruce Schroeder ruled in 2007 that Julie Jensen’s words could be read to a jury, and the trial began at last in January 2008, more than nine years after the woman was poisoned. Jambois drew a portrait of Mark Jensen as a spousal tormenter. He revealed that police had concluded it was Jensen who had harassed his wife with pornographic images for all those years.

He said, “Mark Jensen treated his wife the way some demented people torture small animals or pick the wings off flies.”

Albee built a case that Mark Jensen had been framed by his wife. He said she poisoned herself and set up her husband to take the blame. The jury wrestled with a verdict for several days after being evenly split between conviction and acquittal on its first vote. In the end, it convicted Jensen of intentional murder.

Judge Schroeder sent him away for life without parole, calling Jensen’s crime “so enormous, so monstrous, so unspeakably cruel.”

Today, relatives and friends of Mark and Julie Jensen have dueling Web sites to present their positions.

The victim’s four brothers maintain a tribute Web site, oursisterjulie.com. Mark’s site – “Justice Isn’t Always Served” – charges that Julie “died through her own misadventure.”

From prison, Mark Jensen is pressing an appeal that keys on the use of Julie’s letter as evidence.

dkrajicek@aol.com

Categories: murder Tags: