Users who are viewing this thread

GoreErectus

Forum Veteran
This is where I advocate gene manipulation. He probably had a dick the size of a thumb tack as most Asians seem to have. But believe it or not, some men have penises that are so small, you'd be in shock.
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned
Dr. Marcel Petiot

petiot_000.jpg


Classification: Serial killer
Characteristics: Poisoner - Lured Jews into his home with promises of a safe passage from France to South America during World War II. He then murdered them, stole
their belongings and burnt their bodies
Number of victims: 27 +
Date of murders: 1942 - 1944
Date of arrest: October 31, 1944
Date of birth: January 17, 1897
Victims profile: Men and women
Method of murder: Poisoning (injected his victims with cyanide)
Location: Paris, France
Status: Executed by guillotine on May 25, 1946

Marcel André Henri Félix Petiot (January 17, 1897 – May 25, 1946) was a French doctor who was convicted of multiple murders after the discovery of the remains of twenty six people in his home in Paris after World War II. He is suspected of killing more than sixty victims during his life.

Early life

Petiot was born January 17, 1897 at Auxerre, France. Later accounts make various claims of his delinquency and criminal acts during childhood and adolescence, but is unclear whether they were invented afterwards for public consumption. It should be noted, however, that a psychiatrist diagnosed him as mentally ill on March 26, 1914, and he was expelled from school many times. He finished his education in a special academy in Paris in July of 1915.

During World War I, Petiot was drafted into the French infantry in January 1916. In Aisne he was wounded and gassed and exhibited more symptoms of mental breakdown. He was sent to various rest homes, where he was arrested for stealing army blankets and jailed in Orleans.

In a psychiatric hospital at Fleury-les-Aubrais he was again diagnosed with various mental ailments and was returned to front June 1918. He was transferred three weeks later after he shot himself in the foot, but was attached to a new regiment in September. A new diagnosis was enough to get him discharged with a disability pension.

Medical training

After the war Petiot entered the accelerated education program intended for war veterans, completed medical school in eight months and went to become an intern in Evreux mental hospital. He received his medical degree in December 1921 and moved to Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, where he received payment for his services both from the patients and from government medical assistance funds. At this point, he was already using addictive narcotics. While working at Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, he gained a reputation for dubious medical practices, such as the supply of narcotics, and the performance of then-illegal abortions.

Petiot's first victim might have been Louise Delaveau, the daughter of an elderly patient, with whom he had an affair in 1926. Delaveau disappeared in May and neighbors later said that they had seen Petiot load a trunk into his car. Police investigated, but eventually dismissed her as a runaway. That same year, Petiot ran for mayor of the town, hired an accomplice to disrupt a political debate with his opponent, and won. Once in office, he embezzled from the town funds. In 1927 he married Georgette Lablais. Their son Gerhardt was born the next year.

The local prefect received numerous complaints about Petiot's theft and shady financial deals. Petiot was eventually suspended as a mayor in August 1931 and resigned. The village council also resigned in sympathy. Five weeks later, on October 18, he was elected as a councilor for the Yonne district. In 1932 he was accused of stealing electric power from the village of Villeneuve-sur-Yonne and he lost his seat in a council. Meanwhile, he had already moved to Paris.

In Paris, Petiot attracted patients with his imaginary credentials, and built an impressive reputation for his practice at 66 Rue Caumartin. However, there were rumors of illegal abortions and overt prescriptions of addictive remedies. In 1936 he was appointed médecin d'état-civil with authority to write death certificates. The same year, he was briefly institutionalized for kleptomania, but was released the following year. He still persisted in tax evasion.

After the outbreak of World War II and the fall of France, Petiot begun to provide false medical certificates to French citizens who were drafted to forced labour into Germany, and treated sick workers that had returned. He was also convicted, in July 1942, of over-prescribing narcotics, despite the fact that two addicts who would have testified against him had disappeared. He was fined 2400 Francs.

According to his own tall tales, Petiot also developed secret weapons that supposedly killed Germans without leaving forensic evidence, had high-level meetings with Allied commanders, engaged in resistance activities (planting booby traps all over Paris), and worked with a (nonexistent) group of anti-fascist Spaniards.

Fraudulent escape network

Petiot's most lucrative activity, however, was his own false escape route, Fly-Tox. He adopted a "code-name" "Dr. Eugène." He accepted anyone who could afford his price of 25,000 Francs per person regardless of whether they were Jews, resistance fighters, or ordinary criminals. His aides Raoul Fourrier, Edmond Pintard, and René-Gustave Nézondet directed victims to his hands.

Petiot claimed that he could arrange a safe passage to Argentina or elsewhere in South America through Portugal. He also claimed that Argentinean officials demanded inoculations and injected his victims with cyanide. Then he took all their valuables and disposed of the bodies. People who trusted him to deliver them to safety were never seen alive again.

At first Petiot dumped the bodies in the Seine, but he later destroyed the bodies by submerging them in quicklime or by incinerating them. In 1941, Petiot bought a house at 21 rue le Sueur.

What Petiot failed to do was to keep a low profile. The Gestapo eventually found out about him and, by April 1943, they had heard all about his "route." Gestapo agent Robert Jodkum forced prisoner Yvan Dreyfus to approach the supposed network, but he simply vanished.

A later informer successfully infiltrated the operation and the Gestapo arrested Fourrier, Pintard, and Nézondet. Under torture they confessed that "Dr Eugène" was Marcel Petiot. Nezondet was later released but three others spent eight months in prison suspected of helping Jews to escape. Even under torture, they did not identify any other members of the resistance - because they actually knew of none. The Gestapo released the three men in January 1944.

Discovery

On March 6 1944, neighbors noticed that the smoke from the chimney of 21 Rue le Sueur in Paris smelled noxious. When neighbors went to complain on March 11, they found a note on the door that said the resident would be away for a month.

Neighbors notified the police and told them that Petiot owned the house. When police called Petiot, he told them to wait for him. However, 30 minutes later, police were obliged to call the fire department to stop the spreading fire. When firemen came through a second-story window, they found a grisly display of bodies and body parts.

When Petiot arrived, he claimed that he was a member of the French Resistance and claimed that the bodies were those of Germans, traitors, and collaborators. Because people in general approved of resistance activities, the police were reluctant to arrest Petiot, and so they released him.

When police searched the garage, they found a pit filled with quicklime with human remains in it. On the staircase they found a canvas sack containing human remains. There were enough body parts for at least ten complete bodies.

The prominent Paris police Commissaire Georges-Victor Massu took charge of the investigation. His first problem was to establish if Petiot was killing for the Resistance, or for the Gestapo. The latter possibility was eliminated when he received a telegram where Germans ordered Petiot to be arrested as a "dangerous lunatic." Police found Petiot's apartment on Rue Caumartin abandoned, but also found large amounts of chloroform, digitalis, and various other poisons in addition to large amounts of more usual medical remedies.

German commissaire Robert Jodkum told them that the Gestapo had arrested Petiot on suspicion of smuggling Jews. Police also found a man who had intended to escape but changed his mind. He said that Petiot had offered him passage to South America for 25,000 francs.

Police managed to identify two victims who would have testified against Petiot in the 1942 narcotics trial. It was the first time police had proof of their suspicions that the witnesses had been murdered. Petiot's brother Maurice confessed that he had delivered quicklime to Petiot's house on his brother's orders; he was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, and jailed. Georgette Petiot was also arrested on suspicion of having aided her husband, as were Petiot's accomplices, Nezondet and Porchon, and Albert and Simone Neuhausen, who confessed that they had helped to remove suitcases from the Petiot's charnel house.

On June 6, 1944, the police had to put the investigation on hold when other matters interfered; the Normandy Invasion had begun.

Evasion and capture

During the intervening seven months, Petiot hid with friends, claiming that the Gestapo wanted him because he had killed Germans and informers. He eventually moved in with a patient, Georges Redouté, let his beard grow and adopted various aliases.

When the Resistance and the Paris police rose against German troops in Paris, Petiot adopted the name "Henri Valeri" and joined the French Forces of the Interior (FFI). He became a captain in charge of counterespionage and prisoner interrogations.

When the newspaper 'Resistance' published an article about Petiot, his defense attorney from the 1942 narcotics case received a letter in which his fugitive client claimed that the published allegations were mere lies. This gave police a hint that Petiot was still in Paris. The search began anew - with "Henri Valeri" among those who were drafted to find him. Finally, on October 31, Petiot was recognized at a Paris metro station, and arrested. Among his possessions were a pistol, 31,700 francs, and 50 sets of identity documents.

Trial and sentence

Petiot was placed on death row at La Santé prison. He continued to claim that he was innocent and that he had only killed enemies of France. He claimed that he had discovered the pile of bodies in 21 Rue le Sueur in February 1944, and assumed that they were collaborators that members of his "network" had killed.

Police noticed that Petiot had no friends in any of the major resistance groups. Some of the groups he'd mentioned had never existed, and there was no proof of any of his claimed exploits. Prosecutors eventually charged him with at least 27 murders for profit. Their estimate of his loot ran to 200 million francs.

Petiot went on trial on March 19, 1946, facing 135 criminal charges. René Floriot acted for the defense, against a team consisting of state prosecutors and twelve civil lawyers hired by relatives of Petiot's victims. Petiot taunted the prosecuting lawyers, and claimed that various victims had been collaborators or double agents, or that vanished people were alive and well in South America under new names.

He admitted to killing just nineteen of the twenty-seven victims found in his house, and claimed that they were Germans and collaborators - part of a total of 63 "enemies" killed. Floriot attempted to portray Petiot as a resistance hero, but the judges and jurors were unimpressed. Petiot was convicted of 26 counts of murder, and sentenced to death.

On May 25, Petiot was beheaded, after a stay of a few days due to a problem in the release mechanism of the guillotine.

Other theories

Alister Kershaw has, in his account of the Petiot case in Murder in France, claimed that Petiot had prewar dealings with German intelligence.

Portrayal in Popular Culture

Petiot's life and career were dramatised in the 1990 film Docteur Petiot, directed by Christian de Chalonge and starring Michel Serrault as Petiot. The 2006 film Zwartboek, directed by Paul Verhoeven, is set during the German occupation of the Netherlands but features a fictional character whose personality and activities are clearly inspired by Petiot.


DR. MARCEL PETIOT


Smoke Signals

On Monday morning, March 6, 1944, foul smoke poured from the chimney of a stylish home at 21 Rue le Sueur, Paris. Neighbors suspiciously eyed the three-story 19th-century house, with its private stable and courtyard, once the home of a lesser French princess.

As the hours--then days--dragged on with no abatement of the noxious smoke, a neighbor finally went to complain on Saturday, March 11. He found a note tacked to the door: “Away for one month. Forward mail to 18 Rue des Lombards in Auxerre.”

Police were summoned, and a pair of officers arrived on bicycles. Neighbors informed them that the owner of the house, Dr. Marcel Petiot, maintained a separate residence two miles away, at 66 Rue Caumartin. Some noted the mysterious parade of callers at Dr. Petiot’s empty house during the past six months, including nightly visits from a stranger with a horse cart. Some months earlier, two trucks had stopped at No. 21, the first removing 47 suitcases, while the second delivered 30 or 40 heavy sacks of something unknown.

The officers telephoned Dr. Petiot at home. He asked whether they had entered the house, and upon receiving a negative reply he cautioned, “Don’t do anything. I will be there in 15 minutes.” A half-hour later, with the smoke worsening and no sign of Petiot, the patrolmen called for fire-fighters.

Entering through a second-story window, firemen searched the upper floors before entering the basement. They soon emerged, one vomiting, their chief telling the cops, “You have some work ahead of you.”

Three officers next went downstairs, where a coal-fed stove was found burning full-blast, a human arm dangling from its open door. Nearby, a heap of coal was mixed with human bones and fragments of several dismembered bodies. It was impossible to count the victims in this tableau of grisly disarray.

Stunned, police left the basement at about the time Dr. Petiot arrived on his bicycle. “This is serious,” Petiot remarked. “My head could be at stake.” Then, after questioning each of the lawmen to ascertain that they were French, Petiot identified the basement dead as “Germans and traitors to our country.”

Petiot claimed to be “the head of a Resistance group,” with 300 files at home on Rue Caumartin “which must be destroyed before the enemy finds them.” The French policemen, embittered by years of Nazi occupation, allowed Petiot to leave.

Seven months would pass before they saw him again.

Meanwhile, a search of the death scene proceeded. In Petiot’s garage, police found a large heap of quicklime mixed with human remains, including a recognizable scalp and jawbone. A pit had been dug in the stable, filled with more quicklime and corpses in various stages of decomposition. On the staircase leading from the courtyard to the basement, police found a canvas sack containing the headless left half of a corpse, complete but for its foot and vital organs.

Commissaire Georges-Victor Massu, a 33-year police veteran with more than 3,200 arrests to his credit, immediately took charge of the case. Examining the death house, he noted basement sinks large enough for draining corpses of blood, and a soundproof octagonal chamber with wall-mounted shackles, a peephole centered in its door. Massu was still on the scene at 1:30 a.m., when a telegram arrived from Paris police headquarters. It read: “Order from German authorities. Arrest Petiot. Dangerous lunatic.”

To French patriots, that order from German invaders suggested Petiot might indeed be a hero of the Resistance. Police dragged their feet on the way to Rue Caumartin--and found Petiot’s apartment abandoned, no trace of the doctor or his family. Rather than search for him, detectives grilled the workmen who had remodeled the house on Rue le Sueur. When Parisian authorities learned that Petiot had been jailed and tortured by the Gestapo from May 1943 until January 1944, it eliminated the rationale for an urgent manhunt.

Back at Rue le Sueur, searchers collected mutilated remnants of at least 10 victims, though Chief Coroner Albert Paul told reporters that “the number 10 is vastly inferior to the real one.” In addition to identifiable bones and body parts, Dr. Paul cataloged 33 pounds of charred bones, 24 pounds of unburned fragments, 11 pounds of human hair (including “more than 10” whole scalps), and “three garbage cans full” of pieces too small to identify.

Based on the substantial pieces, Paul said the oldest victim was a 50-year-old man, the youngest a 25-year-old woman. None bore any knife or gunshot wounds, nor had they been poisoned with any toxic metal. Organic poisons could not be ruled out from the samples in hand. At Petiot’s apartment on Rue Caumartin, police found quantities of chloroform, digitalis, strychnine and other poisons, plus 50 times a typical physician’s stock of heroin and morphine.

Clearly, there was something odd about Dr. Petiot--but he was gone. Patriot or villain, he had slipped away, leaving police with three questions:

Who were the victims of 21 Rue le Sueur?

How did they die?

And where was Dr. Petiot?


Charnel House

A police review of Petiot’s background helped identify two victims from the slaughterhouse at 21 Rue le Sueur. One was Jean-Marc Van Bever, a Paris drug addict who procured his narcotics from Dr. Petiot until February 1942, when Van Bever was jailed in a crackdown on pharmacies trading in illicit drugs.

Van Bever admitted buying fraudulent prescriptions from Petiot, but he vanished days before his March 1942 trial. At the time, police believed Van Bever was likely murdered by underworld associates, but they reconsidered that judgment two years later, in light of their discoveries on Rue le Sueur.

Another victim was identified as Marthe Khaït, the mother of another addict--one Raymonde Baudet--who also bargained with Petiot for her poison of choice. Baudet had been jailed in March 1942, two weeks before Van Bever disappeared, and Petiot had come to Marthe Khaït with an idea to help himself get off the hook.

Mrs. Khaït should lie under oath, he suggested, claiming that some of Raymonde’s prescriptions--written in her mother’s surname-- really belonged to Marthe, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case against Petiot. Khaït agreed, then had a change of heart after consulting her physician. She vanished March 26.

Later, her husband received two letters declaring Marthe’s intention to leave the country. The husband consulted Petiot, who confirmed Marthe’s plans to escape Nazi-occupied France. Unconvinced, Raymonde Baudet reported her mother missing on May 7, 1942, but no trace of Marthe was found until officers searched 21 Rue le Sueur.

In July 1942, Petiot was convicted in both narcotics cases. He was fined F10,000 for each offense, but the fine was reduced on appeal to a total of F2,400. Inspector Roger Gignoux suspected Petiot of murdering Khaït and Van Bever, but he had no proof that either victim was dead until March 1944. By that time, Petiot had disappeared.

The search for Petiot began in earnest on March 13, 1944. His wife and son were questioned in Paris, along with his brother Maurice. Maurice Petiot, lacking his brother’s gall or cunning, soon confessed that he had delivered the quicklime to 21 Rue le Sueur, acting on Marcel’s orders. Charged with conspiracy to commit murder, Maurice was jailed on March 17. Georgette Petiot was also detained suspected of aiding husband Marcel in his crimes.

German commissaire Robert Jodkum provided the motive for Petiot’s murders, along with details of Petiot’s eight-month imprisonment by the Gestapo. Petiot had been arrested in May 1943, along with three others, on suspicion of smuggling Jews out of occupied France. Casting their net for witnesses, police found a Paris resident who planned to flee but changed his mind. Marcel Petiot, he said, had offered passage to South America, with all required travel papers, for F25,000. One who used Petiot’s service and vanished forever was Joachim Guschinov, a Jewish furrier. When he disappeared in January 1942, Guschinov took with him some F500,000 in cash, five sable coats, plus gold, silver and diamonds worth as much as F700,000.

Once the “escape” network was exposed, police had no difficulty capturing Petiot’s accomplices. A childhood friend of Petiot’s, René-Gustave Nézondet, was arrested on March 17, 1944. A friend of Nézondet’s picked up the same day, Roland Porchon, admitted referring clients to Nézondet and Petiot.

In July 1942, Porchon told detectives, Nézondet had described Petiot as “the king of the criminals,” claiming that he had seen “16 corpses stretched out” in the basement of 21 Rue le Sueur.

A second witness recalled Nézondet’s admission that he had helped Petiot hide bodies. Nézondet, for his part, initially denied the charges, then confessed on March 22. He had a different chronology for the story, though, claiming that he first learned of the slaughter on Rue le Sueur in November or December 1943, when Petiot was in Gestapo custody. Besides the corpses, he had also seen a diary--now missing--which listed the names of “50 or 60” victims.

Six others were arrested in the Petiot manhunt, including a barber who referred clients to Petiot from his shop on Rue des Mathurins and Albert and Simone Neuhausen, who were held for receiving stolen property after they confessed that they helped remove suitcases from 21 Rue le Sueur. Most of the suspects were released in April 1944, though Nézondet remained in custody for 14 months. Marcel Petiot was still a fugitive on June 6, 1944, when Allied troops invaded France and the investigation ground to a halt.


An Abnormal Youth

Marcel André Henri Félix Petiot was born at Auxerre, 100 miles south of Paris, January 17, 1897. Neighbors later told many tales of his bizarre childhood, but it is unclear how many were fabricated for the press. He enjoyed torturing small animals to death, they said.

His early teachers found Petiot intelligent, reading like a 10-year-old by age five, but he was also a loner with a short attention span. Precociously lewd, he once propositioned a male classmate for sex, and was caught passing obscene photos to other students.

At age 11, he stole his father’s revolver and fired it in history class. Another time, he staged a circus act at school, standing a friend against a door and throwing knives at him.

Of course, Petiot’s parents were concerned. Between 1907 and 1909, they told physicians that Marcel was prone to convulsions and sleepwalking, and habitually wet his trousers and bed.

Petiot’s mother died in 1912, and his father took a new job in Joigny, 15 miles from Auxerre. Marcel and Maurice lived with an aunt until Marcel was expelled from school, near year’s end. Sent to stay with his father, Petiot was soon expelled from a Joigny school for unruly behavior and “over-excitation.”

Petiot soon graduated from childhood mischief to criminal behavior. At age 17 he robbed a postbox, and was then charged with mail theft and damaging public property. The court recommended psychological evaluation.

On 26 March 1914, a psychiatrist pronounced Petiot “an abnormal youth suffering from personal and hereditary problems which limit to a large degree his responsibility for his acts.” It was enough to get the charges dropped in August, Petiot’s judge declaring that “the accused appears to be mentally ill.”

A pattern was forming. Petiot was expelled twice more, from schools in Dijon and Auxerre, before finally completing his education in Paris, at a special academy, in July 1915.

The World War I was in progress, and Petiot was drafted into the French infantry in January 1916, dispatched to the front that November. While fighting in the Aisne district six months later, Petiot was gassed and wounded by grenade fragments. The wounds healed, but Petiot displayed symptoms of mental illness that sent him to a series of clinics and rest homes.

Charged with stealing army blankets, he was jailed at Orléans, then transferred to a psychiatric ward at Fleury-les-Aubrais. Doctors there diagnosed Petiot as suffering from “mental disequilibrium, neurasthenia, mental depression, melancholia, obsessions and phobias.” Once again, they ruled him not guilty by reason of insanity.

The diagnosis did not keep him out of military service, however. Returned to the front in June 1918, Petiot promptly suffered a “nervous breakdown” and shot himself in the foot. Transferred behind the lines, he displayed convulsions at the Dijon railroad depot in July, lying unconscious for most of a day.

That episode earned him a three-week leave, but he was attached to a new regiment in September 1918. Erratic behavior and complaints of headaches sent him back for psychiatric treatment, at Rennes, in March 1919. This time, the diagnoses added were amnesia, sleepwalking, depression and suicidal tendencies.

It was finally enough to get him out of uniform; he was discharged with a 40% disability pension in July. Petiot’s case was reviewed in September 1920, with his disability rating increased to 100%. The author of that report suggested that Petiot be committed to an asylum.

In fact, Petiot had already entered a mental hospital -- but not as a patient. Aided by an accelerated education program for war veterans, he had completed medical school in a stunning eight months and was serving a two-year psychiatric internship Evreux. He received his medical degree on 15 December 1921, from the Faculté de Médeceine de Paris.

Criminal insanity notwithstanding, Petiot had become a full-fledged physician.


Bad Medicine

Armed with his new medical degree, Petiot moved to Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, an ancient village on the Yonne River, 25 miles from Auxerre. On arrival, the 25-year-old physician printed fliers comparing himself to the town’s two elderly doctors.

The fliers read: “Dr. Petiot is young, and only a young doctor can keep up to date on the latest methods born of a progress which marches with giant strides. This is why intelligent patients have confidence in him. Dr. Petiot treats, but does not exploit his patients.”

In fact, while outwardly charming and popular with most of his patients, Petiot secretly enrolled them for state medical assistance, thereby insuring that he was paid twice for each treatment--once by the patient and once by the government. He favored addictive narcotics in his prescriptions.

When one pharmacist complained of the near-fatal dose Petiot prescribed for a child, Petiot replied, “What difference does it make to you, anyway? Isn’t it better to do away with this kid who’s not doing anything in the world but pestering its mother?”

In private, Petiot remained a loner who turned casual conversations into heated debates, ever insisting on the last word. He lived modestly, but splurged on a sports car which he drove recklessly through Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, causing numerous traffic accidents.

A confirmed thief, Petiot stole from strangers and relatives alike; brother Maurice insisted on searching his pockets every time Marcel visited his home. Evicted by one landlord for theft of furniture and fixtures, Petiot shrugged off threats of litigation with the remark that as a certified lunatic he could never be convicted.

Around the same time, in March 1922, Petiot clashed with the Commission de Réforme over demands for new psychiatric exams to maintain his disability payments. He declared that he “purely and simply refused to accept any disability pension at all so as to avoid being subjected to what I find a more than disagreeable bit of exhibitionism.”

Still, the checks kept coming and he was examined once more in July 1923, doctors reporting that his tongue was scarred from bite wounds during epileptic seizures and that Petiot evinced “total indifference” about his own future. That said, his disability was reduced to 50 percent.

In 1926 Petiot surprised his neighbors by launching a torrid affair with young Louise Delaveau, the daughter of Madame Fleury, an elderly patient. Soon after the affair began, the Fleury home was burglarized and set afire. No one connected the events, but Petiot was suspected when Louise disappeared in May 1926.

Neighbors recalled seeing Petiot load a large trunk into his car, closely resembling another fished out of the river weeks later, filled with the dismembered, decomposed remains of a young woman who was never identified. Ignoring the “coincidence,” police searched briefly for Louise and then dismissed her as a runaway. She may, in fact, have been Petiot’s first murder victim.

Soon after Louise disappeared, Petiot ran for mayor of Villeneuve-sur-Yonne. The long, bitter campaign climaxed in July 1926, when Petiot hired an accomplice to disrupt a political debate with his opponent. When Petiot finished speaking, his crony cut power to the auditorium, blacking out the entire village and starting several fires. Petiot won by a landslide.

His opponent later told the Commission de Réforme that Petiot had boasted of feigning insanity to escape military service. Yet another review of his case confirmed the original diagnosis, pronouncing Petiot’s claims of fraud “another manifestation of the subject’s mentally unbalanced state."


The Politician

Villeneuve-sur-Yonne now had a certified madman in charge, and Petiot acted the part. His kleptomania was an open secret, Mayor Petiot was suspected of stealing money from the town’s treasury, the bass drum from a local band, even a large stone cross that Petiot had once deemed an eyesore. Some despised Petiot; others called him the best mayor ever. Petiot, for his part, blamed all criticism on crass political enemies.

In June 1927, Petiot married Georgette Lablais, the 23-year-old daughter of a wealthy landowner in nearby Seignelay. Their only child, a son Gerhardt, was born the following April.

Eight months after that happy event, Petiot was accused of stealing several cans of oil from Villeneuve-sur-Yonne’s railroad depot. As it turned out, Petiot had purchased the oil legally, but he did commit fraud by denying receipt of the shipment and claiming a refund. In early 1930 the court at Sens fined him F200 and sentenced him to three months in prison. Petiot was suspended as mayor for four months, but managed to have the conviction reversed on appeal.

In the meantime, more serious trouble was afoot.

One night in March 1930, fire razed the home of dairy unionist Armand Debauve. His wife Henriette was found inside, beaten to death with a blunt instrument. Police suspected murder during robbery, since F20,000 was reported missing from the house. Footprints led across the nearby fields toward Villeneuve-sur-Yonne. Rumors spread that Henriette Debauve was Dr. Petiot’s mistress and that he was seen near her home on the night of the crime.

The witness in that case, a Monsieur Fiscot, declared his plans to testify but made a fateful visit to Dr. Petiot’s office instead. Fiscot sought treatment for his rheumatism. He received an injection and died three hours later, Petiot signing the death certificate blaming his demise on an aneurysm.

In April, Armand Debauve spoke to police, telling them that a resident of Villeneuve-sur-Yonne had claimed Dr. Petiot could identify Henriette’s killer. Local gendarmes sought help from police headquarters in Paris, but the file was somehow “misplaced,” disappearing until April 1946. By that time, Dr. Petiot was charged with multiple murders in Paris and no one seemed interested in reopening the Debauve investigation.

During the next 16 months, the local prefect logged numerous complaints against Mayor Petiot, most involving theft or financial irregularities. Prosecutors investigated, finding that 138 alien registration applications and F2,890 in fees had been held at city hall, never relayed to the proper authorities.

Petiot blamed his secretary, who obliged the mayor by accepting responsibility. But Petiot was still suspended as mayor for a second time in August 1931, and he resigned the next day. The village council also resigned in sympathy, leaving files in disarray and many purchase orders obviously altered.

Petiot’s mayoral office was officially revoked the next month, but he did not seem to mind. Five weeks later, on October 18, he won election as the youngest of 34 general councilors from the Yonne district. As usual, his tenure was stormy, with Petiot accused of stealing electric power from the village of Villeneuve-sur-Yonne in August 1932.

At trial on that charge the following year, the judge dubbed Petiot’s defense “pure fantasy,” and sentenced him to 15 days in jail and a F300 fine. The appeal dragged on for a year, affirming Petiot’s conviction but suspending the jail time, with his fine reduced to F100. The conviction cost Petiot his council seat, but it hardly mattered, since he had moved his family to Paris in January 1933.


City of Lights

Petiot promoted himself with typical zeal in Paris, offering patients a wide variety of treatments, claiming credentials both real and imaginary. Advertisements described him as an interne (intern) at one mental hospital where he had actually been an interné (patient). Outside his home-office at 66 Rue Caumartin, Petiot erected a brass plaque so jam-packed with phony endorsements that another physician complained to the medical association and Petiot was forced to remove it.

Bogus credentials aside, Dr. Petiot attracted a huge clientele and built an exemplary reputation. Years later, at the height of his infamy in 1944, police would interview 2,000 patients without hearing a word of criticism about Dr. Petiot.

At the same time, however, rumors persisted that Petiot was an abortionist (illegal in those days) and that he supplied addicts with drugs under the guise of “cures.” In 1934, 30-year-old Raymonde Hanss visited Petiot for treatment of an abscess in her mouth. She was still unconscious when Petiot drove her home after surgery. Hanss never regained consciousness and died several hours later.

Her mother, Madame Anna Coquille, demanded an autopsy, which revealed significant levels of morphine in Raymonde’s body. The coroner postponed burial until a full investigation was completed, but authorities closed the case without filing charges. Madame Coquille renewed her complaints in 1942, but the court upheld its original finding of death by natural causes.

Petiot faced his first investigation for narcotics violations in 1935, but police found no conclusive evidence. The next year Petiot was appointed médecin d’etat-civil for the ninth arrondissement of Paris, a post that granted him authority to sign death certificates. As usual, he used the position for personal gain: in December 1942, summoned to pronounce the death of a wealthy lawyer, Petiot was accused of stealing F74,000 from the dead man’s home. Caught shoplifting a book in April 1936, Petiot assaulted a policeman and escaped on foot.

He surrendered two days later, tearfully pleading for mercy, citing his military discharge records as proof that he was not responsible for his behavior. Police dropped the assault charge and Petiot was acquitted of theft on grounds of insanity. His wife, Georgette, arranged for Petiot to enter a private sanitorium in August 1936.

Petiot had barely arrived at the hospital when he began pleading for immediate release. His madness had passed, he assured staff psychiatrists. It was a momentary aberration, caused by his preoccupation with a new invention--a suction machine designed to relieve constipation. Dr. Rogues de Fursac found Petiot “chronically unbalanced,” but still recommended his release in early September 1936.

Petiot’s liberation was nonetheless stalled while the court appointed three more psychiatrists to review his case. The panel’s report expressed “strong doubts as to [Petiot’s] good faith at any point during this affair,” but the doctors could find no legal grounds for holding him. Petiot was released in February 1937.

Chastened by his latest confinement, Petiot appeared to clean up his act, with the exception of persistent tax fraud. Between 1937 and 1940 he reported less than 10 percent of his actual income. In 1938, for instance, he declared F13,100, while earning closer to F500,000. That year saw him charged with fraud and fined F35,000, despite a spirited defense that included pleas of poverty.

The life of every Frenchman changed in September 1939, when German troops invaded Poland, thus launching World War II. Polish resistance collapsed in October, inaugurating the seven-month “Phony War” between France and Germany. Fighting spread with the Nazi invasion of Denmark and Norway in April. German troops invaded Holland, Belgium and France the following month.

The French commander of Paris declared it an “open city” in June 1940, and German troops seized the French capital. A collaborationist French government under Marshal Philippe Pétain was organized two weeks later in Vichy, broadcasting orders for a general cease-fire. Forty thousand French soldiers surrendered on June 22, while the Resistance armed and organized for long years of guerrilla war.

In Paris, Dr. Petiot had a new world of opportunity under German occupation. He would use and emulate the Nazis in pursuit of his greatest and most lethal scheme thus far.


Sanctuary

There was, it seems, at least some truth to Petiot’s later claims of joining the Resistance. Soon after the Nazi occupation of Paris, he began providing false medical certificates to Frenchmen drafted for slave labor.

Petiot also apparently treated sick and wounded workers returned to France from Germany, gleaning information about Nazi troop movements and weapons development. His Fly-Tox network, named after a popular insecticide (since informers were dubbed “flies”), spied on Gestapo headquarters in Paris to identify collaborators so they could be eliminated by teams of Resistance assassins.

At the same time, though, Petiot spun tales of patriotic battles that were never fought. He claimed to have invented “secret weapons” that killed Nazis without forensic evidence. Allied commanders denied his reports of high-level meetings and no evidence of the mystery weapon ever surfaced. Petiot also claimed to be working with a group of anti-fascist Spaniards in Paris, but they were never found. His tales of planting bombs and booby traps around Paris were fervid flights of fantasy.

Petiot’s chief operation after 1940 was disclosing escape routes to potential fugitives. He welcomed Jews, Resistance fighters, petty criminals--anyone, in fact, who could meet his price of F25,000 a head. For that amount, Petiot promised safe passage to South America, complete with all the necessary travel papers. In 1941 he bought the house at 21 Rue le Sueur, as a way station for his personal Underground Railroad.

Among Petiot’s early customers were two Parisian pimps, Joseph Réocreux and Adriene Estébétéguy, who had lately broadened their repertoire to include armed robbery while disguised as Gestapo agents. Sought by French and German police alike, Réocreux sought help from Petiot (known as “Dr. Eugène” to his illicit clients) in September 1942.

Traveling with his mistress, Claudia Chamoux, and another couple--pimp François Albertini and prostitute Annette Basset--Réocreux paid his fee and promptly vanished into 21 Rue le Sueur. Estébétéguy and girlfriend Gisèle Rossny followed in March 1943, also vanishing without a trace. Petiot would later boast of killing the three pimps and their women, branding all six as Nazi collaborators, touting their executions as his patriotic duty.

By April 1943 Gestapo officers reported “a great deal of talk in public about an organization which arranges clandestine crossings of the Spanish border by means of falsified Argentinean passports.” Nazis asserted that “the voyagers travel on neutral ships leaving from a port in Portugal.”

In fact, they never left Paris alive. Gestapo agent Robert Jodkum blackmailed a French Jew, Yvan Dreyfus, into approaching the network for passage, but Dreyfus vanished with the rest in May 1943.

Others who availed themselves of Dr. Petiot’s services included Nelly-Denise Hotin, a pregnant newlywed who came looking for an abortion in July 1941 and was never seen again. Dr. Paul-Léon Braunberger, an elderly Jew who planned to flee with his wife, disappeared alone from a Paris subway station in June 1942.

A month later, three German Jews--the Knellers--vanished after consultations with Petiot, their dismembered remains fished out of the Seine in August. Three more refugees, the Wolff family, disappeared into 21 Rue le Sueur, along with six friends. Another pimp, Joseph Piereschi, also made the dead-end journey with his mistress, Joséphine-Aimée Grippay.

Those were the victims whom police later identified, but they did not comprise the total body count. Numerous dismembered victims were dragged from the Seine in 1942 and ’43, the remains including nine heads, four thighs, and sundry other mutilated pieces.

French police and coroners were baffled, unable to identify most of the dead. Gestapo agents, for their part, were less concerned about dead Frenchmen than about the prospect of Jews and Resistance fighters escaping to freedom. The Nazis had a fix on Petiot’s Fly-Tox network, and by May 1943 they were ready to spring the trap.


The Fugitive

Petiot advertised his illicit services so blatantly that the Fly-Tox network was ripe for infiltration by early 1943. In fact, an informer named Charles Beretta had wormed his way into the operation, feeding names to the Gestapo as he went.

In May, Nazis arrested Raoul Fourrier, Edmond Pintard and René-Gustave Nézondet, torturing them until they identified Marcel Petiot as “Dr. Eugène.” Petiot joined the others in prison at Fresnes. Although Nazis searched his home and other property, they somehow missed the charnel house on Rue le Sueur. Nézondet was released two weeks later, but Petiot, Fourrier and Pintard spent a total of eight months in prison. They were tortured repeatedly, but staunchly refused to betray members of the Resistance.

In fact, based on the tales Petiot spun at his murder trial, in 1946, his stubborn silence may have sprung from simple ignorance. The “hero” had no names to offer his captors, since he played no significant role in the Resistance movement, and any confession of his Fly-Tox operation was tantamount to suicide.

Frustrated, the Nazis released Fourrier, Pintard and Petiot in early January 1944. Ironically, the months of torture and confinement provided Petiot with his best cover yet--but his time was running out. By March, his chamber of horrors on Rue le Sueur was exposed and Petiot himself had vanished.

Loyal patients and friends were the keys to Petiot’s survival as a fugitive. They shuttled him from one address to another in Paris while he cultivated a beard, and adopted one name after another to conceal his movements. Eventually, Petiot found a home with patient Georges Redouté.

Petiot convinced Redouté that the Gestapo wanted him for killing “Germans and informers.” While living with Redouté, Petiot ventured out only at night; sometimes returning with weapons claimed to have been captured from Nazi patrols.

Parisian police went on strike in August 1944, besieged at their Préfecture by German tanks and troops. That month Petiot, calling himself “Henri Valéri”, joined the new French Forces of the Interior (FFI). He was promptly commissioned as a captain, in charge of counterespionage and interrogation of prisoners in the Reuilly district of Paris. The French capital was liberated the next month and collaborators were purged, with Petiot/Valéri in the thick of the action.

His cover began to unravel in September, when two FFI soldiers from Petiot’s unit robbed the elderly mayor of Tessancourt, stealing F12.5 million in cash and collectable stamps from his home before killing their victim in front of witnesses.

Three youths reported the crime to Petiot, who promptly tossed them in jail. An FFI lieutenant tried to investigate, but was ordered off the case by Capt. Valéri. The bandits were briefly detained, then released. The thieves disappeared as well as the money.

Three days after the robbery-murder the newspaper Résistance published a scathing article on fugitive Petiot. The story called him a “soldier of the Reich” who had allegedly donned a German uniform to hunt down French patriots around Avignon in March 1943. Attorney René Floriot, Petiot’s defense counsel in the 1942 narcotics cases, received a letter from his fugitive client which condemned the Résistance article as a collection of “filthy kraut lies.”

While the letter was false, Petiot’s letter convinced authorities that he was still in Paris. A new search began, with FFI Captain Henri Valéri among the officers drafted to hunt for Petiot.

Petiot’s luck ran out at 10:15 a.m. on Oct. 31, when Petiot was recognized and arrested at a Paris metro station. He carried a pistol, F31,700 in cash, and 50 documents in six different names. Petiot’s long run was over, but the search for the truth had just begun.


"An Appalling Murderer"

Petiot’s defense was a plea of complete innocence. He admitted killing certain “enemies of France” as a Resistance member, but denied any murders for profit. According to Petiot, he first became aware of corpses stashed at 21 Rue le Sueur in February 1944, after his release from Nazi custody.

He assumed the dead “collaborators” had been killed and dumped by members of his Fly-Tox network, long since scattered and unable to verify his story. Petiot had asked brother Maurice for quicklime to dissolve the bodies and camouflage their odor.

Petiot was housed on death row at Santé prison while authorities investigated his claims. Strangely, for a patriotic hero, he had no defenders in the leadership of recognized Resistance groups. Some knew him as a small-time hanger-on, a fraud, or not at all; other groups, described in detail by Petiot, proved to be nonexistent.

No record survived of his alleged bombing forays, assassination of Nazis, or tests of his various “secret weapons.” Prosecutors finally dismissed Petiot’s story and charged him with murdering 27 victims for plunder--an estimated F200 million in cash, gold and jewels that was never recovered.

Petiot’s trial began on March 18 1946, at the Palais de Justice, before a panel of three judges and a seven-man jury. René Floriot once again defended Petiot. Prosecutors were helped by 12 civil lawyers who were hired by the relatives of Petiot’s victims. Petiot took an active role in his own defense, bantering with judges and prosecutors, grilling witnesses, exchanging jibes with the private attorneys.

He denounced the Khaït family’s lawyer as a “double-agent” and a “defender of Jews,” while noting that victim Joseph Réocreux “was easy to spot as a collaborator. He had a head like a pimp--you know, like a police inspector.” Victim Joachim Guschinov was alive and well, Petiot insisted. Why couldn’t prosecutors find him? Because, Petiot smirked, “South America is a big place.”

And so it went. Petiot refused to describe his secret weapons because “the information could only be used against France.” He dismissed the Wolff family--Dutch Jews fleeing Nazi persecution at home--as “Germans,” while victim Yvan Dreyfus was “a traitor four times over.” Victim Kurt Kneller suffered from “an embarrassing affliction” which Petiot refused to name, but he and his family had not been killed; they had returned to Germany, Petiot insisted, and were “getting ready for the next war.”

Petiot had met Dr. Paul-Léon Braunberger “for 10 minutes in my life,” at a public luncheon; he could not explain why Braunberger’s clothing was found at 21 Rue le Sueur. Many fugitives had survived the Fly-Tox escape route, Petiot testified, but none were identifiable because “they changed names frequently.” Rebuked by the chief judge Michel Leser for doodling in court, Petiot retorted, “I am listening, but it doesn’t really interest me very much.”

After the trial’s second day, reporters overheard two jurors and Judge Leser discussing Petiot in private, referring to him as “a demon” and “an appalling murderer.” Attorney Floriot immediately sought a mistrial, but the appellate court rejected the motion. The trial resumed after the two offending jurors were replaced.

On the trial’s fifth day, judges and jurors visited 21 Rue le Sueur. As he passed through a phalanx of police and jeering neighbors, Petiot quipped, “Peculiar homecoming, don’t you think?”

Petiot maintained his hero’s posture to the end, admitting that he had killed 19 of the 27 victims found on Rue le Sueur. They were all “Germans and collaborators,” of course, ranked among the 63 enemies of France whom Petiot admitted killing between 1940 and 1945. The other 44 were not identified, with Petiot telling the court, “I don’t have to justify myself for murders I’m not accused of committing!”

In fact, he had already said more than enough. René Floriot’s summation hailing Petiot as a hero of the Resistance won a standing ovation from the courtroom audience. But the judges and jurors held a very different view. After deliberating for three hours--a mere 90 seconds for each of the 135 criminal charges--the court convicted Petiot on all but nine counts.

He was acquitted of killing Nelly-Denise Hotin, but found guilty of 26 other premeditated murders. Petiot’s death sentence was a foregone conclusion, although it did not seem to faze him in the slightest.


"My Conscience is Clean"

Attorney Floriot appealed the conviction and sentence citing two complaints. First, he maintained that a mistrial should have been granted after Judge Leser and two jurors publicly declared their belief in Petiot’s guilt.

Furthermore, Floriot charged, witness Marguerite Braunberger and her maid were perjurers. They lied in maintaining that Dr. Braunberger was dead, instead of hiding out in South America. All three points were rejected and Petiot’s death sentence was affirmed.

The day before that judgment was rendered, guards found an ampoule concealed in the Petiot’s prison uniform. They suspected it was cyanide, but the contents proved to be a sedative, smuggled into prison when Petiot arrived the previous October. The prisoner seemed calm, smiling as he asked his guards, “When are they going to assassinate me?” He refused to see a priest, preferring as he said to “take his baggage with him.”

Petiot had been scheduled to die on the day his appeal was rejected, but the guillotine malfunctioned that morning and his execution was postponed. At 3:30 a.m. May 25, a portable guillotine was delivered to the prison, assembled and ready to do its grim work by less than an hour later.

Summoned from his cell, Petiot refused the traditional glass of rum but accepted a cigarette. He also agreed to meet with the prison chaplain for his wife’s sake, telling the minister, “I am not a religious man and my conscience is clean.”

The closing ritual was swiftly completed. Petiot signed the register before his hands were bound, his neck shaved, and the collar cut from his shirt. He approached the guillotine calmly. Dr. Albert Paul, among the witnesses, noted that Petiot “moved with ease, as though he were walking into his office for a routine appointment.” Before he was strapped to the guillotine’s sliding table, Petiot warned the observers, “Gentlemen, I ask you not to look. This will not be very pretty.”

The blade dropped at 5:05 a.m. According to the witnesses, Petiot was smiling as his head tumbled into the basket.


Bibliography

Grombach, John. The Great Liquidator. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980.

Maeder, Thomas. The Unspeakable Crimes of Dr. Petiot. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1980.

Seth, Ronald. Petiot: Victim of Chance. London: Hutchinson, 1963


petiot_1921.jpg

Doctor Marcel Petiot, 1921.


petiot_1927.jpg

Doctor Marcel Petiot, 1927.


petiot_121.jpg

Doctor Marcel Petiot


petiot_122.jpg

Doctor Marcel Petiot


petiot_151.jpg

petiot_152.jpg

petiot_153.jpg


The courtyard of 21 Rue le Sueur



petiot_154.jpg

petiot_155.jpg


The stove



petiot_157.jpg

petiot_156.jpg


The peephole in the triangular room.



petiot_161.jpg

Remains found at 21 Rue le Sueur.


petiot_162.jpg


Transportation of remains found at 21 Rue le Sueur.



petiot_250.jpg

Doctor Marcel Petiot after being arrested.



petiot_251.jpg

Doctor Marcel Petiot handcuffed at the Criminal Investigation Department of Paris after being arrested
on October 31, 1944. (Photo by Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)


petiot_253.jpg

Doctor Marcel Petiot


petiot_252.JPG

Doctor Marcel Petiot


petiot_254.jpg


Doctor Marcel Petiot
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned
petiot_execution.jpg


The guillotine used to behead the Doctor Marcel Petiot.




Marcel Petiot murder trial


petiot_901.JPG

March 1946: Coroner Dr. Paul (R, standing) speaking at Marcel Petiot murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)



petiot_902.JPG

March 1946: Marcel Petiot (C) speaking at his murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)


petiot_903.JPG

March 1946: Marcel Petiot (L, standing) speaking at his murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)


petiot_904.JPG

March 1946: Marcel Petiot (2L) listening to his lawyer at murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)



petiot_905.JPG

March 1946: Marcel Petiot (C) speaking at his murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)



petiot_906.JPG

March 1946: Coroner Dr. Paul (C) speaking at Marcel Petiot murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)




petiot_907.JPG

March 1946: Marcel Petiot (2L) speaking at his murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)


petiot_908.JPG

March 1946: Psychiatrist Prof. Gaurion (C) speaking at Marcel Petiot murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)


petiot_909.JPG

March 1946: Close-up of Marcel Petiot (top) at his murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)


petiot_910.JPG

March 1946: Man being sworn in at Marcel Petiot murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)


petiot_911.JPG

March 1946: Toxicologist Prof. Griffon (C) speaking at Marcel Petiot murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)


petiot_912.JPG

March 1946: Marcel Petiot (C) speaking at his murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)


petiot_917.jpg

Marcel Petiot speaking at his murder trial.


petiot_918.jpg

Marcel Petiot speaking at his murder trial.


petiot_913.JPG

March 1946: Coroner Prof. Piedelieore (C) being sworn in at Marcel Petiot murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)


petiot_914.JPG

March 1946: Luggage being exhibited at Marcel Petiot murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)


petiot_915.JPG

March 1946: Coroner Dr. Paul speaking at Marcel Petiot murder trial.
(Ralph Morse/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned
Marcel Petiot murder trial

petiot_801.jpg


March 1, 1946 - Doctor Marcel Petiot'S attitude in the docks.
(Photo by Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)




petiot_802.jpg

March 1, 1946 - Doctor Marcel Petiot'S attitude in the docks.
(Photo by Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)



petiot_916.jpg

petiot_900.jpg

Doctor Marcel Petiot'S attitude in the docks.


petiot_803.jpg

March 1, 1946 - Doctor Marcel Petiot'S attitude in the docks.
(Photo by Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)



petiot_804.jpg

Doctor Marcel Petiot in the dock at his trial. Before him, Maitre Rene Floriot wearing glasses, his lawyer.
Behind the Doctor, the victims' cases with their belongings which were kept by the Doctor.
(Photo by Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)


petiot_805.jpg

March 1, 1946 - Doctor Marcel Petiot'S lawyers, Maitre Rene Floriot weraing glasses.
(Photo by Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)


petiot_806.jpg

In March-April 1946, Mrs Gruchnov whose husband was Doctor Marcel Petiot's victim testifying at his trial.
(Photo by Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)


petiot_812.jpg

petiot_807.jpg

Rene Floriot (R), attorney of French serial killer Dr. Marcel Petiot (C), wire-drawers his client's puts
during his trial in March 1946 in the Paris Courthouse.
(Photo by: AFP/Getty Images)


petiot_808.jpg

1946: The Seine Assize Court, Paris, during the trial of French mass murderer Dr Marcel Petiot
(between policemen, left). Petiot was convicted of 24 murders and guillotined in Paris in 1946.
(Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)


petiot_811.jpg

The 47 suitcases seized by police in a private residence at Villeneuve at the Seine Assize Court
during the trial of French mass murderer Dr Marcel Petiot. The cases contain clothes which were
identified by relatives of some of his victims.
(Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)


petiot_810.jpg

The trial of Dr Marcel Petiot, the serial killer who lured Jews into his home with promises of a safe
passage from France to South America during World War II. He then murdered them, stole
their belongings and burnt their bodies.
(Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)


petiot_844.jpg


Dr Marcel Petiot in the dock.



petiot_845.jpg

French mass murderer Dr Marcel Petiot in the dock, with his lawyer Dr Fleuriot (foreground).




petiot_851.jpg

April 10, 1946 - Dr. Marcel Petiot (L) stands and listens as presiding Judge Marcel Leser reads
his verdict to the court. Petiot was convicted of killing 27 people in Paris throughout the 1940s,
and will receive the death penalty. His lawyer, Rene Floriot, stands below him.
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned
Some victims


Adriene-Estebeteguy-%28police,victim.jpg


Adriene Estébétéguy, victim



Annette-Basset,-victim.jpg


Annette Basset, victim



Claudia-Chamoux,-victim.jpg


Claudia Chamoux, victim



Dr-Paul-Braunberger,-victim.jpg


Dr. Paul-Léon Braunberger, victim



Frances-Albertini,-the-Cors,victim.jpg


François Albertini, victim



Gine-Volna-aka-Gisele-Rossny,victim.jpg


Gisèle Rossny, victim



Jean-Marc-van-Bever,-victim.jpg


Jean-Marc Van Bever, victim



JoachimGuschinov.jpg


Joachim Guschinov, victim



Joseph-Piereschi,-victim.jpg


Joseph Piereschi, victim



Joseph-Reocreux,-victim.jpg


Joseph Réocreux, victim



Kurt-Kneller,-victim.jpg


Kurt Kneller



Lina-Wolff,-victim.jpg


Lina Wolff, victim



MargaretKneller.jpg


Margaret and René Kneller, victims



Nelly-Denise-Hotin,-victim.jpg


Nelly-Denise Hotin, victim




Paulette-Grippay,-victim.jpg


Joséphine-Aimée Grippay
(aka Paulette Grippay), victim




Yvan-Dreyfus,-victim.jpg


Yvan Drefus, victim
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned
Alton COLEMAN & Debra Denise Brown


coleman.jpg
coleman1.jpg

Classification: Serial Killer
Characteristics: Kidnappings - Rapes - Armed robberies
Number of victims: 8
Date of murders: May-July 1984
Date of arrest: July 20, 1984
Date of birth: November 6, 1955
Victims profile: Vernita Wheat, 9 / Tamika Turks, 7 / Donna Williams, 25 / Virginia Temple and her daughter Rachelle, 9 / Tonnie Storey, 15 / Marlene Walters, 44 / A 77-year-old man
Method of murder: Strangulation
Location: Indiana/Ohio/Illinois, USA
Status: Executed by lethal injection in Ohio on April 26, 2002




Summary:

At the time of Coleman's execution, there were approximately 3,700 convicted murderers on death row in the United States. Coleman was the only one with death sentences from 3 different states: Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois.

These sentences were the culmination of a 1984 midwestern crime spee by Coleman and accomplice Deborah Brown that included up to 8 murders, 7 rapes, 3 kidnappings, and 14 armed robberies.

Ohio

On July 11, 1984, 15 year old Tonnie Storey left her home in Cincinnati to attend a computer class at a junior high school. Eight days later, her bound and partially decomposed body was discovered in an abandoned building.

The cause of death was strangulation. A classmate testified and identified Coleman in the company of a woman talking to the victim on July 11th, when she was last seen alive.

A fingerprint from the scene also matched Coleman's. Both Coleman and Brown received death sentences. On appeal, Coleman's death sentence was set aside due to ineffective counsel. Brown's death sentence was commuted in 1991 by Ohio Governor Celeste as he was leaving office.

Coleman and Brown bicycled into Norwood, Ohio, on July 13, 1984. About three hours later, they drove away in Harry Walters' car, leaving Harry Walters unconscious and Marlene Walters dead. Harry Walters survived.

He testified that Coleman and Brown inquired about a camping trailer he had been offering for sale. Upon inviting Coleman and Brown into his home, he sat on the couch discussing the trailer title. Coleman picked up a wooden candlestick and, after admiring it, hit Harry Walters on the back of the head, knocking him unconscious.

A few hours later, Sheri Walters came home from work and at the bottom of the basement steps, she found her father, barely alive, and her mother, dead. Both had ligatures around their throats and electrical cords tied around their bare feet. Her mother's hands were bound behind her back and her father's hands were handcuffed behind his back. Her mother's head was covered with a bloody sheet.

Indiana

7 year old Tamika and her 9 year old niece, Annie, were walking back from the candy store to their home when they were confronted by Debra Denise Brown and Coleman. Brown and Coleman convinced them to walk into the woods to play a game. Once there, they removed Tamika's shirt and tore it into small strips which they used to bind and gag the children.

When Tamika began to cry, Brown held her nose and mouth while Coleman stomped on her chest. After carrying Tamika a short distance away, Annie was forced to perform oral sex on both Brown and Coleman, then Coleman raped her. Brown and Coleman then choked her until she was unconscious. When she awoke, they were gone.

Tamika was found dead in the bushes nearby, strangled with an elastic strip of bedsheet. The same fabric was later found in the apartment shared by Coleman and Brown. Annie received cuts so deep that her intestines were protruding into her vagina. Evidence of a remarkably similar murder in Ohio was admitted at trial.

Illinois

Juanita Wheat, the victim's mother, testified that at the time of the offense she resided in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with her daughter, Vernita, and her seven- year-old son, Brandon.

At the end of April or beginning of May of 1984, the defendant introduced himself to Juanita as Robert Knight, showed her an identification card bearing that name, and told her he lived two blocks away. Coleman visited often and ate dinner with the family over the next few weeks.

On May 29, 1984, Juanita allowed Vernita to accompany Coleman to his apartment "to pick up a stereo system." They never returned.

A customer at the local "400 Club" testified that a black man and Vernita entered the establishment at approximately 11:35 p.m. on May 29, 1984, and the man immediately used the telephone. A few minutes later a cab arrived to pick them up.

On June 19, 1984, the body Vernita Wheat was discovered in the bathroom of an abandoned building in Waukegan, Illinois. A fingerprint from Coleman was taken from the scene.

Citations:

Ohio
State ex rel. Coleman v. City of Cincinnati, 1990 WL 59257 (Ohio App. 1990) (FOIA).
State v. Coleman, 1987 WL 18124 (Ohio App. 1987) (Direct Appeal-Storey).
State v. Coleman, 544 N.E.2d 622 (Ohio 1989) (Direct Appeal-Storey).
Coleman v. Mitchell, 268 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2001) (Habeas).
State v. Coleman, 1986 WL 14070 (Ohio App. 1986) (Direct Appeal-Walters).
State v. Coleman, 525 N.E.2d 792 (Ohio 1988) (Direct Appeal-Walters).
Coleman v. Mitchell, 244 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2001) (Habeas).

Indiana
Coleman v. State, 558 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind. August 24, 1990) (Direct Appeal).
Coleman v. Indiana, 111 S. Ct. 2912 (1991) (Cert. denied) .
Coleman v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind. 1988) (PCR) .
Coleman v. Indiana, 120 S.Ct. 1717, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (Cert. granted).
Coleman v. State, 741 N.E.2d 697 (Ind. December 29, 2000) (On Reconsideration).

Illinois
People v. Coleman, 544 N.E.2d 330 (Ill. 1989) (Direct Appeal).
People v. Coleman, 660 N.E.2d 919 (Ill. 1995) (PCR).
Coleman v. Ryan, 196 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 1999) (Habeas).

Final Meal:

Filet mignon with mushroom gravy, biscuits and gravy, fried chicken, French fries, broccoli with cheese, collard greens, onion rings, corn bread, a salad, sweet potato pie, butter pecan ice cream and cherry cola.

Final Words:

"The Lord is my shepherd," which he repeated over and over again.


Alton Coleman was twice sentenced to death for Cincinnati-area slayings in 1984 in a killing rampage in which he also terrorized Dayton. The slayings were part of a crime campaign that also led to death sentences for Coleman in Indiana and Illinois.

Coleman of Waukegan, Ill., was sentenced to die in Ohio for the strangulation of Tonnie Storey, 15, of Cincinnati and the beating death of Marlene Walters, 44, of Norwood, a suburb of Cincinnati.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the sentence in the Storey case after concluding Coleman’s attorneys did not adequately represent him in a 1985 trial.

The court, however, upheld Coleman’s conviction. The court earlier had upheld Coleman’s death sentence for Marlene Walters’ death. Coleman’s attorneys have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Walters ruling.

They argue that since the same two attorneys represented Coleman in both Ohio cases, it is inconsistent that his sentence be overturned in one case and upheld in the other.

Coleman also was sentenced to die in Indiana for killing Tamika Turks, 7, of Gary, Ind., and in Illinois for slaying Vernita Wheat, 9, of Kenosha, Wis. Vernita's body was found in Waukegan.

Coleman's common-law wife, Debra Denise Brown, traveled with him during the killing rampage and was sentenced to death in the Storey and Turks killings.

Coleman briefly surfaced in Dayton in July 1984 after he and Brown kidnapped Cumberland, Ky., college associate professor Oline Carmical. He was freed from the trunk of a car near McCabe Park after a passer-by heard noises from the vehicle. Carmical was not injured.

That same morning, Coleman beat and robbed an elderly couple, Millard and Katheryn Gay. Her life was spared when Coleman's gun misfired. Coleman tied up and robbed another Dayton couple, Dallas and Flossie Davis, that same day.

Former Ohio Gov. Richard Celeste in 1991 commuted Brown's sentence to life for the Storey murder. Brown is at Ohio's prison for women in Marysville and still faces the death sentence in Indiana.

Celeste had said a report from his staff showed Brown was retarded, suffered from childlike emotional development and had a "master-slave" relationship with Coleman. Brown and Coleman were accused of committing eight random killings in six states during the summer of 1984.

They were captured in Evanston, Ill. Brown and Coleman also were the prime suspects in the kidnap-murder of Donna Williams, 25, of Gary, Indiana. Her body was found in Detroit. They were never tried for the crime.

Clark County Prosecuting Attorney

7 year old Tamika and her 9 year old niece, Annie, were walking back from the candy store to their home when they were confronted by Debra Denise Brown and Coleman. Brown and Coleman convinced them to walk into the woods to play a game.

Once there, they removed Tamika's shirt and tore it into small strips which they used to bind and gag the children. When Tamika began to cry, Brown held her nose and mouth while Coleman stomped on her chest.

After carrying Tamika a short distance away, Annie was forced to perform oral sex on both Brown and Coleman, then Coleman raped her. Brown and Coleman then choked her until she was unconscious. When she awoke, they were gone.

Tamika was found dead in the bushes nearby, strangled with an elastic strip of bedsheet. The same fabric was later found in the apartment shared by Coleman and Brown.

Annie received cuts so deep that her intestines were protruding into her vagina. Evidence of a remarkably similar murder in Ohio was admitted at trial.

These acts proved to be part of a midwestern crime spee by Coleman and Brown that included up to 8 murders, 7 rapes, 3 kidnappings , and 14 armed robberies. Coleman has accumulated death sentences in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.

Coleman Put to Death


April 26, 2002

Lucasville - Convicted serial killer Alton Coleman, who along with girlfriend, Debra Denise Brown, cut a murderous swath across at least four Midwest states during the summer of 1984, was executed by the state of Ohio today.

He was pronounced dead at 10:13 a.m. Mr. Coleman was executed for the 1984 beating death of Norwood resident Marlene Walters. His last words were: "The Lord is my shepherd," which he repeated over and over again.

Prison officials said Mr. Coleman had a fitful night before the execution. "I don't know if it was from indigestion or nervousness," said Reginald Wilkinson, director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Mr. Coleman ordered the largest final dinner of any condemned inmate to date.

He declined to shave or shower when he awoke between 4 and 5 a.m., prison officials said. He ate a single piece of toast. Two sisters and a brother, who were supposed to attend final visits with the 46-year-old Illinois native, did not show.

Prison officials say Mr. Coleman spent the time Thursday evening and early Friday with his attorneys and his spiritual advisers. It was believed that his family had "transportation problems." He was baptized Tuesday. He is a follower of Dallas-based televangelist T.D. Jakes. "He appears to have accepted his fate," said Andrea Dean, an ODRC spokeswoman.

About 16 anti-death penalty protesters were gathered outside the Southern Ohio Correction Facility in Lucasville as the execution began. Six Cincinnati protesters, including Sister Alice Gerdeman, coordinator of the Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center in Over-the-Rhine, were part of the group.

On Thursday, Mr. Coleman requested a final dinner of filet mignon, sauteed mushrooms, sweet potato pie with whipped cream, butter pecan ice cream, biscuits with brown gravy, broccoli with cheese, french fries, cherry coke, a green lettuce salad with French dressing, collard greens, onion rings, fried chicken breast and corn bread. Mr. Wilkinson said Friday that in lieu of filet mignon Mr. Coleman was served a New York strip steak. All the food came from the prison kitchen, except the ice cream.

Alton Coleman (November 6, 1955 – April 26, 2002) was an African-American serial killer. He was executed by the state of Ohio for the murder of 44-year-old Marlene Walters of Norwood, Ohio during a six-state killing spree in 1984.

Overview

Coleman received four death sentences from three Midwest states: Illinois, Ohio (two times), and in Indiana. At the time of his execution he was the only condemned person in the country to have death sentences in three states. His partner-in-crime, Debra Denise Brown, was originally slated to be executed in Ohio, but in 1991 her death sentence was commuted to life in prison by Governor Richard Celeste. She still has a death sentence for the murder the duo committed in Indiana. However, Brown is serving her sentence, without possibility of parole, in the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville, Ohio.

During the summer of 1984, the 28-year-old Coleman and Brown, who was 21 at the time, embarked upon a killing spree through several Midwestern states.

By the time the couple were caught, Coleman was charged or wanted for questioning in assaults on at least 20 people in 13 separate attacks, including seven murders. Almost all of the victims were African-American like Coleman and Brown, but authorities said that was simply because the duo knew they would blend better in the black community, and that there was no racial motive in the murders.

Background of Coleman and Brown

Coleman was a middle-school drop-out who lived with his 73-year-old grandmother in Waukegan, Illinois, and who was well-known to the Illinois law enforcement community. The son of a prostitute who would often have sex with customers in his presence, he was charged with sex crimes six times between 1973 and 1983. Two of the cases were dismissed, and Coleman pleaded guilty to lesser charges in two and was twice acquitted. He claimed to "like it in the butt", and Coleman was scheduled to go on trial in Illinois on charges stemming from the rape of a 14-year-old girl when he fled and began his indiscriminate killing.

One of 11 children, Brown was borderline mentally retarded, suffered head trauma as a child, and was described as a "dependent personality." She was engaged to another man when she met Coleman in 1983, but left her family and moved in with him shortly afterward. Although a willing participant in the assaults and murders, Brown was never violent or in trouble with the law until she met up with Coleman.

In commuting Brown's sentence, Governor Celeste cited her low IQ scores, ranging from 59 to 74, and her "master-slave" relationship with Coleman. Brown was one of eight Ohio death row inmates to have her sentence commuted by Celeste, a staunch opponent of capital punishment, a week before he left office. Four of those whose sentences were commuted were the state's only female death row inmates.

Despite her non-violent history before the spree, Brown remains unrepentant for her acts. During the sentencing phase of her first Ohio trial, Brown sent a note to the judge which read in part: "I killed the bitch and I don't give a damn. I had fun out of it."

Details of the Murders

May 1984

Their crimes began in May 1984 when Coleman befriended Juanita Wheat who lived in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and was the mother of nine-year-old Vernita. On May 29, 1984, Coleman abducted Vernita to Waukegan, Illinois. Her body was discovered on June 19, 1984 in an abandoned building, four blocks from Coleman's grandmother's apartment. The body was badly decomposed and the cause of death was ligature strangulation.

On May 31, 1984, Coleman befriended Robert Carpenter in Waukegan, Illinois, and spent the night at his home. The next day he borrowed Carpenter's car to go to the store and never returned.

June 1984

In June 1984, Coleman and Brown appeared in Gary, Indiana, where they encountered two young girls, 9-year-old Annie and 7 year old Tamika Turks. Tamika's partially decomposed body was discovered on June 19, 1984. The cause of death was ligature strangulation. Annie survived, even though she was sexually assaulted by both Coleman and Brown.

The day Tamika's body was found, Coleman befriended Donna Williams, 25, of Gary, Indiana. On July 11, 1984, Williams' badly decomposed body was discovered in Detroit, about a half-mile from where her car was found. The cause of death was again ligature strangulation.

On June 28, 1984, Coleman and Brown entered the home of Mr. and Mrs. Palmer Jones of Dearborn Heights, Michigan. Palmer was handcuffed by Coleman and then badly beaten. Mrs. Jones was also attacked. Coleman ripped the Jones' phone from the wall and stole their money and car.

July 1984

The day after Independence Day 1984, Coleman and Brown came to Toledo, Ohio, where Coleman befriended Virginia Temple, the mother of several children. Her eldest child was Rachelle, aged nine. When Virginia dropped out of communication with relatives, they became concerned about the children and entering the home found the young children alone and frightened. Virginia's and Rachelle's bodies were discovered in a crawl space. A bracelet was missing from the home and later was found in Cincinnati under the body of Tonnie Storey. The cause of death of both Virginia and Rachelle was strangulation.

The same morning as the murders of Virginia and Rachelle, Coleman and Brown entered the home of Frank and Dorothy Duvendack of Toledo where Coleman proceeded to bind the couple with appliance and phone cords which had been cut. Coleman and Brown took money and the Duvendack's car. One of Mrs. Duvendack's watches was stolen and found later under another victim.

Later that same day, Coleman and Brown appeared at the home of the Reverend and Mrs. Millard Gay of Dayton, Ohio. They stayed with them in Dayton and then accompanied them to Lockwood, Ohio, on July 9, to a religious service. On July 10, the Gays dropped off Coleman and Brown in downtown Cincinnati.

By this time, Coleman had come to the attention of the FBI, which on July 12, 1984, added him to its Ten Most Wanted List as a "special addition". Coleman was just the 10th person since the initiation of the list in 1950 to merit inclusion in such a manner.

Coleman and Brown bicycled into Norwood, Ohio, on July 13 at about 9:30 a.m. Less than three hours later they drove away in Harry Walters' car, leaving Harry Walters unconscious and his wife, Marlene, dead.

Harry Walters survived. He testified that Coleman and Brown inquired about a camper he had put up for sale. Walters sat on the couch as he and Coleman discussed the trailer title. Coleman picked up a wooden candlestick and, after admiring it, hit Harry Walters on the back of the head. The force of the blow broke the candlestick and drove a chunk of bone against Mr. Walters' brain. From that point on, Mr. Walters remembered little else.

Sheri Walters, Harry and Marlene's daughter, came home from work at about 3:45 p.m. and at the bottom of the basement steps, she found her father, barely alive, and her mother, dead. Both had ligatures around their throats and electrical cords tied around their bare feet. Her mother's hands were bound behind her back and her father's hands were handcuffed behind his back. Her mother's head was covered with a bloody sheet.

The coroner indicated Marlene Walters had been struck on the head approximately 20 to 25 times. Twelve lacerations, some of which were made with a pair of vice grips, covered her face and scalp. The back of her skull was smashed to pieces. Parts of her skull and brain were missing.

The living room hallway, and basement, were splattered with blood. Fragments of a broken soda bottle, bearing Coleman's fingerprints, were found in the living room. Strands of Marlene Walters' hair were found on a blood-stained magazine rack located in the living room. Bloody footprints, made by two different kinds of shoes, were found in the basement.

The family car, a red Plymouth Reliant, was gone. Money, jewelry, and shoes had been stolen. Left behind were two bicycles, clothes and shoes.

Two days later, the Plymouth showed up abandoned in Kentucky. The couple then kidnapped Oline Carmichael Jr., a Williamsburg, Kentucky, college professor and drove back to Dayton with their victim locked in the trunk of the car. On July 17, in Dayton, they abandoned this stolen vehicle and Carmichael was rescued by authorities.

Coleman and Brown reappeared at the home of Millard and Kathryn Gay. The Reverend Gay recognized Coleman, who was by this time the subject of a huge nationwide manhunt, and he and his wife were accosted with guns. The Reverend Gay asked Coleman, "Why you want to do us like that, like this," and according to Gay, Coleman responded: "I'm not going to kill you, but we generally kills them where we go." Coleman and Brown took their car and headed back toward Evanston.

On the way back home, they take time to steal another car, killing the 77-year-old man who owned it.

Capture and Trial

On July 17, 1984, Alton Coleman became the 388th fugitive listed by the FBI on the Ten Most Wanted list.

On July 20, 1984 in Evanston, illinois, someone from Coleman’s old neighborhood pulled up to a red light. As he waited for the light to change Coleman and Brown crossed the street in front of his car. He only knew Coleman casually but did recognize him. As Coleman and Brown continued walking west the witness drove north to a gas station where the police were notified.

The information was dispatched and a description of the two was broadcasted. As officers pulled into the area a detective saw Coleman and Brown sitting on probable bleachers in an empty Mason Park; but noted they were wearing different tee shirts. The detective informed the other units just as two sergeants were driving by the park. As they heard the broadcast they turned and saw the two. As Coleman was approached the officers observed Brown walking away from Coleman toward the rear of the park.

The detective joined the two sergeants and Coleman was approached for questioning. As Coleman was being interviewed, two other officers stopped Brown as she tried to exit the park. She was searched and a gun was found in her purse. Coleman had no identification and denied he was Alton Coleman. Both Coleman and Brown were taken into custody without incident and transported to the Evanston Police Department where both were identified by fingerprints.

In the police station Coleman was strip searched and a steak knife was found between two pair of sweat socks he was wearing. When taken into custody they had a shopping bag full of different tee shirts and caps. It was learned as the two walked they would stop every three to four blocks to change shirts and caps.

A week after they were arrested, more than 50 law enforcement officials from Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio met to plan their strategy for prosecuting Coleman and Brown. Michigan, which does not have the death penalty, was quickly ruled out as the place to begin and eventually Ohio was given the first shot at the alleged spree killers.

"We are convinced that prosecution (in Ohio) can most quickly and most likely result in the swiftest imposition of the death penalty against Alton Coleman and Debra Brown", U.S. Attorney Dan K. Webb said.

Appeals and Execution

Ohio was successful in convicting Coleman and Brown on a pair of aggravated murder charges (In May 1985 for the murder of Tonnie Storey, and in June 1985 for the murder of Marlene Walters), as well as a plethora of other violent crimes. They were both sentenced to be executed and the lengthy appeals process began. Coleman's case went to the United States Supreme Court several times between 1985 and 2002, but his numerous arguments that his conviction and death sentence were unconstitutional failed to sway the justices.

By April 2002, time had run out for Coleman. His last-ditch effort to avoid lethal injection was unsuccessful when on April 25, 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected a claim by Coleman's attorneys that the state's plan to accommodate the large number of victims and survivors who wanted to view the execution would turn it into a "spectator sport". There were so many victims and survivors who were allowed to witness the execution that prison officials had been forced to set up a closed-circuit viewing outside the death house.

For his final meal, Coleman ordered a well-done filet mignon smothered with onions, fried chicken breasts, a salad with French dressing, sweet-potato pie topped with whipped cream, french fries, collard greens, onion rings, cornbread, broccoli with melted cheese and biscuits and gravy. He washed it all down with a Cherry Coke.

On April 26, 2002, reciting "The Lord is my shepherd", Alton Coleman died by lethal injection in the death chamber at the state prison in Lucasville, Ohio.

Reginald Wilkinson, director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, said Coleman did not convey remorse for the killings

Court Decisions

Coleman v. Mitchell, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 268 F.3d 417; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 21639; 2001 FED App. 0367P (6th Cir.), October 10, 2001

In re Coleman, Supreme Court of Ohio, 95 Ohio St. 3d 284; 2002 Ohio 1804; 767 N.E.2d 677; 2002 Ohio LEXIS 916, April 19, 2002

State v. Brown, Supreme Court of Ohio, 38 Ohio St. 3d 305; 528 N.E.2d 523; 1988 Ohio LEXIS 289, August 31, 1988

State v. Coleman, Supreme Court of Ohio, 37 Ohio St. 3d 286; 525 N.E.2d 792; 1988 Ohio LEXIS 212, July 6, 1988

State v. Coleman, Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 9048, October 7, 1987



Clock Runs Out on Alton Coleman

April 26, 2002

LUCASVILLE - Alton Coleman, who left eight people dead in a murderous rampage through six Midwestern states, was executed today by lethal injection. He was pronounced dead at 10:13 a.m. EDT.

Coleman, 46, who was baptized three days ago, was put to death at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility for the savage beating death of Marlene Walters, 44, in her Norwood home on July 13, 1984.

In a holding cell 13 steps from the death chamber, Coleman spent his last hours scribbling notes to family and friends, meeting with his spiritual advisers and watching videotapes recorded by an evangelical Christian minister.

Prison spokesman Andrea Dean said Coleman woke up about 5:15 a.m. after watching television and listening to music late into the night. He had expected that his two sisters and a brother would visit with him in the death house this morning, but they did not show up.

Sixteen witnesses related to Coleman's victims, including Harry Walters - who was attacked along with his wife but survived the vicious beating - arrived this morning to watch in person and on closed-circuit TV as Ohio executed the only man in U.S. history sentenced to death in three states.

After an 0-for-6 showing in the courts on Thursday in a last-gasp bid to keep their client alive, Coleman's public defenders told the office of Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery there was a less than 1-percent chance they would file further appeals.

Coleman, of Waukegan, Ill., became one of the most notorious serial killers to ever stalk the Midwest in murdering four adults and four children during a six-week reign of brutality that wove through Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky.

That rampage took him to Lexington in mid-July where Mrs. Walters' auto was found abandoned in a cornfield near Lexington July 15, two days after her murder. On July 17, Oline Carmicalof Williamsburg was kidnapped in Lexington and left in the trunk of his car, which was found in Dayton, Ohio.

Coleman, who was black, largely preyed on other African Americans, with Mrs. Walters his only white murder victim. Coleman also was convicted of the rape and strangulation murder of Tonnie Storey, 15, of Mohawk, during his stay in the Cincinnati area.

Coleman made no request of prison officials to contact Debra Denise Brown, his girlfriend and companion in crime who is serving life sentences for the murders of Mrs. Walters and Miss Storey and who faces execution in Indiana.

Coleman arrived at the death house in Lucasville shortly after 10 a.m. Thursday for what would be Ohio's fourth execution - after a 36- year hiatus in capital punishment - since 1999. ''He had a very peaceful evening. He appears to have accepted what lies ahead for him,'' Ms. Dean said this morning.

Prison officials served him his final meal last night, the largest yet ordered at Lucasville by a condemned man. His menu included a filet mignon with mushroom gravy, biscuits and gravy, fried chicken, French fries, broccoli with cheese, collard greens, onion rings, corn bread, a salad, sweet potato pie, butter pecan ice cream and cherry cola. He ate part of the meal at 4 p.m. and snacked on it through the evening. He declined breakfast this morning, saying he was still full from dinner.

In motions objecting to the closed-circuit TV broadcast of his death to the large number of witnesses to ineffective legal counsel, Coleman and his lawyers failed to win a reprieve in six attempts before four courts - the 10th District Ohio Court of Appeals, the Ohio Supreme Court, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Harry Walters, who was to watch in person with sons-in-law Michael Blunt and Scott Lillard as Coleman died from a $43 dose of generic chemicals, had said ''execution is the solution'' to winning the justice and closure he feels his family long has been denied.

Coleman and Ms. Brown were invited into the Walters' home after they pretended to be interested in purchasing a camping trailer posted with a ''for sale'' sign outside their Floral Avenue residence.

Coleman's other murder victims were small girls in Waukegan, Ill., and Gary, Ind., an Indiana woman kidnapped and taken to Detroit, a mother and her daughter in Toledo and an elderly man in Indianapolis.

Relatives of those victims, plus Cincinnatians Harry Storey and Paulette Anderson, the father and aunt of Miss Storey, were to watch Coleman's death on two TVs in J Block adjacent to the death house at Lucasville.

Coleman and his lawyers unsuccessfully pleaded for mercy from the courts and Gov. Bob Taft, contending his violence was the outgrowth of growing up in a brothel where he was abused and brain damage he suffered in the womb from his prostitute mother's alcohol and drug abuse.

Coleman denied he killed Mrs. Walters, with Ms. Brown confessing to her murder, but the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court jury refused to buy their story.

Ms. Brown was sentenced to death for the Storey murder, but her sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in early 1991 by outgoing Gov. Richard Celeste. She remains imprisoned at the Ohio Reformatory for Women at Marysville.

The Crime Library

"Alton Coleman & Debra Brown: Odyssey of Mayhem," by Mark Gribben.

Deadly Duo

Maybe people shouldn’t be surprised that a boy who had to endure the nickname “Pissy” because of a tendency to wet his pants would grow up to be one of America’s most savage spree killers.

And it certainly didn’t help that Pissy would go to prison on a robbery charge and emerge two years later with a tendency to dress in women’s clothing and a desire for rough sex.

Whatever the reasons, Alton Coleman and his girlfriend Debra Denise Brown will go down in history as a short-lived U.S. version of Great Britain’s multiple sex-slayers Myra Hindley and Ian Brady.

The story of Coleman and Brown begins in the mid-1970s, takes place in five states and involves one of the largest manhunts in recent history.

It is a tale of American criminal justice that stands among the most depraved and cruel incidents of the modern age -- Coleman and Brown demonstrated a lack of respect for human life that shocked even hardened FBI agents and police officers.

In less than two months, they assaulted, raped and murdered their way from Illinois to Michigan and down to Kentucky before authorities were finally able to capture then.

Coleman and Brown are behind bars, each awaiting a date with the executioner, but the evil they wrought upon their innocent victims lives on to this day. The duo have used every avenue of judicial appeal possible and seek mercy from the courts – mercy they rarely showed when they prowled the Midwest.

With every new court ruling or delay, dozens of survivors relive the horror of their encounters with the murderous pair of lovers.

A child victim who managed to avoid death at their hands vows that she will never marry because of her inability to trust and questions whether she is still “pure”. Another survivor battles drug addiction, suicide attempts, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

A mother and father must adjust to the fact that Coleman will never stand trial for their daughter’s murder and they may never find out the circumstances surrounding her slaughter.

Coleman’s family, on the other hand, consider themselves victims – not of their deadly relative, but of a system that they believe persecutes and plans to kill an innocent man. Debra Brown's mother continues to rue the day her daughter met Alton Coleman.

Brown was “a good girl,” unknown to police before she fell under Coleman’s spell, but by the time the pair were caught, it was clear that Brown was just as vicious and murderous as her ex-con boyfriend.

Probably what is most disturbing about Alton Coleman is that he shouldn’t have been on the streets to begin his rape- robbery -murder spree. Over and over Coleman managed to manipulate the judicial system in his favor, beating sexual assault charges on several occasions.

Frustrated prosecutors and lawmen knew they had a monster on their hands, but could only stand by helplessly as jury after jury let the him walk, confident the system had “worked” to free an innocent man.

A Boy Called "Pissy"

Born in Waukegan, an Illinois town about a half-hour’s drive north of Chicago, Alton Coleman endured the taunts of schoolchildren who teased him because he so often wet his pants. They christened the mildly retarded boy “Pissy.”

Family members and law enforcement officials who had dealings with Coleman since his teen years said Alton was slow to show emotion and generally kept to himself.

Clearly alienated from his peers, Coleman had a reputation for his strong sex drive – reportedly he was bisexual and willing to engage in sex any time, any place with anyone. Said one friend of Coleman’s late mother: “He knew he was different…even as a young child. “As he grew up, (Coleman) was deeply into insidious kinds of sexual gratification.”

Coleman first came to the notice of police as a teenager when he was picked up for breaking windows in his Waukegan housing project. He was quickly labeled as a troublemaker, but for the most part, his crimes were of the petty sort.

There was little indication to authorities of the mayhem to come. Interestingly, property damage, often in the form of arson, can be an indicator of serial murder tendencies. That is not to say that every youngster who breaks windows or lights fires is bound to be a serial killer, but only that many multiple murderers committed similar acts as children.

On the way to becoming a serial killer, Coleman gave the law many chances to put him away, but Alton was “smooth as silk,” according to those who fought him in court. Lawmen said Coleman put on a good appearance in court which often convinced jurors that authorities had the wrong man.

Alton, according to friends, also relied upon the supernatural to help him escape justice. He claimed that voodoo made him invulnerable to attack by the law.

“He was good at conning jurors,” Waukegan Police Lt. Marc Hansen told the Detroit Free Press in 1984 when Coleman and Harris were hiding out in Detroit. “He tells a convincing story in court. People are impressed with his testimony. He comes off as a decent person.”

A prosecutor who watched Coleman beat a rape charge agreed. “He knows what kind of case holds up in court and which ones don’t,” said former U.S. attorney Fred Foreman. “He’s been to the penitentiary. He’s a career criminal”

But when the façade wouldn’t work and voodoo god Baron Samedi wasn’t listening, Coleman resorted to more common forms of beating the rap, most notably witness intimidation. “It’s difficult to get people in court to prove these charges because they are sexual assault charges, they involve kids, they involve family that don’t want to see him go to jail,” said Hansen.

In 1983, Coleman’s sister went to authorities and told them her brother tried to rape her eight-year-old daughter. Three weeks later, she went to court to have the charges dropped. “It’s a misunderstanding,” she said. “A lot of families go through that. It doesn’t make any difference now.”

The judge hearing the motion for dismissal was astounded by the 25-year-old woman’s testimony “I think the woman as she stands here today, is terrified of this man,” the judge said. He called her account of the incident “completely implausible.” But in the end, with no victim and no witnesses, the judge had no choice but to free Alton Coleman and dismiss the charges.

Coleman’s rap sheet before his Midwestern spree reads like a one-man sex crime wave. In 1973 he and an accomplice kidnapped, robbed and raped an elderly woman.

She refused to testify about the rape and Coleman served two years on the robbery charge. Three months after his release from Joliet, Coleman was arrested for another rape. He was acquitted but served time for a lesser charge. Four years after that spell in the pen, Coleman was acquitted of rape.

A year later he was arrested for an attempted rape – the charge was dismissed. In July, 1983 he was charged with the rape of his niece. That charge was dismissed. In early 1984 he was indicted for the knifepoint rape and murder of a suburban Chicago girl whose mother was a friend of his.

Coleman learned he was wanted for that crime but disappeared, kicking off his multi-state crime spree with his girlfriend, Debra Brown.

Odyssey of Mayhem

Why Alton and Debra went underground is still a mystery 15 years after they were arrested. Police blamed Coleman’s “intense hatred of blacks,” but longtime friends dismissed that reason as absurd.

The pair’s victims were mostly black because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Coleman stayed in traditionally black neighborhoods because they provided a place for him to hide.

“That sounds so crazy to me,” said one Waukegan public official who knew Coleman since “he was in diapers.” “Why does he victimize blacks? Black neighborhoods are the logical place for him to go. If he went into a white community, they would have found him long ago.”

A friend of the family said Coleman could not deal with his homosexual tendencies. “He used to dress up like a woman a lot. It was well known that he had different habits than a normal male,” the friend said.

Coleman is a classic “disorganized serial killer.” He rarely stalked a particular victim, but instead lashed out at whomever was nearby.

He used whatever tools he had handy to kill or incapacitate his victims and there did not appear to be any ritual to his violence.

What probably set him off was the realization that he no longer had anything to lose. Perhaps the indictment on the aggravated rape and murder charges – which could have brought the death penalty – were enough to finally push him over the brink to whatever madness prompts such violence.

While the pair was on the run, Coleman was indicted on murder charges in Wisconsin and a federal warrant was issued for his capture.

Regardless of the motivation, Coleman and Brown began their spree on June 5, 1984 when the pair rented an apartment in Gary, Ind. Coleman had been wanted by police since May 31 and Debra Brown had been interrogated about his disappearance June 1.

The Spree Begins

The pair laid low for two weeks until June 18 when two young girls, Tamika Turks and her 9-year-old aunt disappeared on their way to a candy store. Later that day, the 9-year-old was found beaten and raped. Tamika was missing.

A day later, Tamika's badly ravaged body was found in a wooded area in Gary. She had been raped and killed by someone stomping on her chest.

The older girl was forced to watch as the pair killed Tamika – Brown holding Tamika to the ground and covering her nose and mouth and Coleman jumping on her chest and face until her ribs fractured and punctured her vital organs.

The older girl then was forced to have sex with both Brown and Coleman before being beaten about her head. To this day the young woman suffers severe headaches and screaming fits.

“She will get to screaming and crying like someone is hitting her on the back of the head,” said Mary Hilliard, the child’s mother. Her injuries left the family with $15,000 in medical bills, which were substantially, but not completely covered by insurance.

LaVerne Turks, Tamika’s mother, was forced to move to Minneapolis because the memories of Tamika in Gary, Indiana, were too painful. “LaVerne’s gone. Tamika’s missing. My daughter is having these problems. Our family will never be the same,” said Hilliard, who attempted suicide shortly after her granddaughter’s death.

The same day Tamika's body was discovered, Donna Williams, 25, was reported missing by her parents. Her car was stolen, as well.

A week later, Williams’s car was found abandoned in Detroit with a forged identification card featuring Brown’s picture. Residents from the area said the car had been parked in the alley since June 19.

Police in four states were now looking for the pair, working on the assumption that Donna Williams had been murdered, even though her body had not been found.

In the meantime, two days after Williams was reported missing, a Detroit woman was kidnapped by a man and woman whom she later identified as Coleman and Brown. She escaped while driving the pair to Toledo by purposefully ramming her car into oncoming traffic.

Coleman and Brown were able to survive by befriending good Samaritans and later turning on their friends, authorities said. “We’ve come to the conclusion that Coleman and Brown are staying with people they meet,” said FBI Special Agent John Anthony in Detroit. “They spend a day or two with the people, get a little money gambling with them and then assault and rob them and steal their car.”

Detroit Crime Wave

While in Detroit, Coleman and Brown eluded police while instigating a small, but violent, crime wave. Warrants for their arrest were issued for the kidnapping and robbery of the 28-year-old Detroit woman who managed to escape the killers, a June 28, 1984 robbery and beating of an elderly Dearborn Heights couple and the June 30 robbery of two Detroit men.

By the time the deadly duo left Detroit, police in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan, as well as federal authorities, were on the lookout.

Despite Coleman’s disorganized pattern of murder, there were some similarities among the crimes – in every case the cars stolen by Coleman and Brown were recovered within 12 hours.

When authorities were not able to locate a 1975 Buick stolen by the pair after they beat and robbed a 55-year-old woman and her companion, they had good reason to suspect that Coleman and Brown had left the Motor City.

Sadly, even though the pair had fled to Toledo, the evidence of their crimes continued to surface. In an abandoned house near Wayne State University in Detroit, the badly decomposed body of Donna Williams was found on July 11. It was clear that she hadn’t lived long after she arrived, as a hostage, in Detroit.

There will likely never be any closure – legal or psychological – for the family of Donna Williams. When authorities gathered to determine the best course of action against Coleman and Brown, the Williams case was not tried.

“We chose to go with the strongest cases against the two that would result in the death penalty,” said Lake County, Indiana prosecutor Jack Crawford. “It appeared that Williams was killed in Michigan, which does not have the death penalty.”

For Robert and Zenota Williams, Donna’s parents, punishment is not foremost on their minds. “I will always wonder what, exactly, happened,” Zenota Williams told the Detroit Free Press in a retrospective on the spree three years later.

Three other homicides tied to the pair will also probably not ever be tried: the slaying of 77-year-old Eugene Scott of Indianapolis and the killings of Virginia Temple and her 10-year-old daughter in Toledo.

Scott was suspected of being their last murder victim because his car was found in Evanston, Ill. where they were arrested.

From Toledo, the pair continued south, stopping long enough in Cincinnati to murder Marlene Waters, who was found bludgeoned to death in the basement of her home.

Waters’ husband was badly beaten in the attack and left for dead. Coleman and Brown stole the Waters’ car and headed to Lexington, Ky., where they abandoned the car in a cornfield.

In nearby Williamsburg, the duo kidnapped Oline Carmical and drove to Dayton, Ohio leaving Carmical locked in the trunk of his car. An elderly Dayton couple was found beaten and gagged in their home after the fugitives stole their car. Another Dayton couple reported to police that Coleman and Brown robbed them.

The trip from Tamika Turks’ murder to the crimes in Indianapolis took less than a month, with the pair committing felonies on the average of crime every other day. In all, the murderous 53-day rampage – from the time Coleman raped and murdered the 9-year-old in Kenosha, Wis., to the time they were arrested in Illinois -- resulted in a slew of felonies: eight homicides, as many as seven rapes, three kidnappings and 14 armed robberies.

Capture

Some time after the murders of the Temples and Scott, Coleman and Brown returned to the Waukegan area. Their case had inspired a great deal of notoriety across the country and Coleman had recently been named as a “special addition” the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list.

In becoming a special addition, Coleman joined such notable felons as H. Rap Brown and Martin Luther King’s murderer, James Earl Ray.

Coleman’s family aside, they had few friends left after their spree and it wasn’t surprising that when an acquaintance of Coleman’s saw the pair walking near Evanston, Ill., he would turn them in. Authorities had been watching Evanston closely because of Coleman’s known associates there and the fact that the duo had rented an apartment in Evanston prior to fleeing to Gary.

Knowing that there were few criminals as desperate as Coleman and Brown, authorities were cautious in making the arrest.

Once police pinpointed their location – the pair was spotted by undercover officers in a local park – state, local and federal authorities began to converge on the couple.

Shortly before noon on July 20, 1984 Coleman and Brown were watching a pick-up basketball game from the bleachers at Mason Park on the west side of Evanston as officers began to approach.

Coolly, as if he hadn’t a care in the world, Coleman began walking away as plainclothes and uniformed cops neared. Wearing a torn yellow shirt and sporting a short haircut unlike the jheri-curl ‘do he wore in published photos, Coleman surrendered peacefully when confronted. “You got the wrong man,” he told arresting officers. He provided two aliases and Brown identified herself as “Denise Johnson.”

She was carrying a loaded revolver and Coleman had a long knife hidden in his boot, but neither went for their weapon.

“They looked like they did on TV,” said an 11-year-old who witnessed the arrest. “The capture was quick and easy.”

Investigation

Although there were some holes in the authorities’ investigation, it was clear that they had been expecting the two-person crime wave to return to Evanston. Neighbors in the area said they had heard for three weeks that Coleman and Brown would eventually turn up there.

The mood of the neighbors was as jubilant as that of police who clearly basked under the media spotlight. “There was a community awareness about him,” said one neighbor. “He wasn’t going to be able to come in here and snatch anybody. We were waiting for him.”

Residents of the Mason Park area told the media that Coleman looked tired and emaciated when arrested and they speculated that the lethal duo had “just run out of steam.”

Law enforcement officials thought along similar lines with one officer wondering if they had unconsciously wanted to do so: Coleman had never worried about leaving fingerprints at his crime scenes, and FBI agents said he was so lackadaisical it was almost as if he was trying to leave a calling card.

Those same fingerprints would eventually do in Alton Coleman. Despite his protests that officials had the wrong man, Evanston police were able to positively identify the man arrested in Mason Park as the man who left fingerprints at crime scenes in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and Kentucky. Fingerprints on file with the FBI conclusively proved that the suspects in custody were Coleman and Brown.

Brown's Confession

With Coleman and Brown in custody, the problem fell to state and federal officials to untangle the slew of accusations against the couple and to decide which cases to prosecute. It was clear from the outset that the most punitive states would have first shot at the pair.

That meant capital crimes committed in Michigan and Wisconsin, which have no death penalty, would be tried last – if at all. “We want him first,” said Lake County DA Fred Foreman. “I’ve been in court with this man before and I want to bring him back.”

Brown and Coleman were separated by police and Debra, easily the most wanted woman in the country, was advised of her constitutional rights. She immediately invoked her right to remain silent and asked to speak to an attorney.

In the Evanston police station, the FBI agent who administered the Miranda warning continued to ask Brown questions about her identity – things like her name, age, birth date, and address, according to court documents. An Evanston detective questioned Brown as well, seeking clues to an attack in his jurisdiction for which the pair was suspected.

When the time came to transport Brown to the federal lockup, she spoke with agents on the trip to Chicago. Arriving at the federal building, she was once again advised of her rights and she once again refused to sign a waiver. She did, however, agree to talk to officers as long as she could stop when she wanted to.

Over the next two and a half hours, Brown discussed the crime spree in detail, in effect confessing to many of the crimes committed during the brief, but violent odyssey across the upper Midwest.

When she finished, she once again asked to speak with an attorney. No further inquiry was made until after Brown spoke to a lawyer.

During trial, Brown’s attorney protested that her Fifth Amendment right – the right against self-incrimination – was violated because authorities continued to interrogate after she had asked for counsel.

The trial court found that the Evanston detective did violate her rights and the evidence from his questioning was ruled inadmissible.

However, the confession given to federal authorities in Chicago was used in the trial and with it conviction was easily obtained.

Brown was sentenced to die for the murder of Tamika Turks. Later, Brown was sentenced to die for the Cincinnati murders, but she continued to be held on Indiana’s death row.

Coleman was convicted of the same murders and also sentenced to die. In January 1991 the governor of Ohio commuted Brown’s death sentence, saying she was retarded and “dominated by” Coleman. She is now serving two life sentences in Ohio for her crimes there. However, Indiana is not finished with her.

It took almost seven years, but in August 1991 the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had not erred by allowing the confession into evidence. The conviction and death sentence would stand.

The appeals court found that despite her repeated attempts to speak to an attorney, the confession was separated by “space, time and subject matter” from her first request for counsel that it was proper. Brown willfully gave the confession, the court noted, after being advised of her rights.

Interestingly, it was Brown’s conversations with authorities while she was being transported to federal custody that created the loophole which could result in her execution. She asked questions like “where am I going?” and “what am I charged with?”

Criminal defense attorneys fumed at the court’s decision, with one saying to the Indianapolis Star that the Fifth Amendment was being “squeezed to death.” “If you ask anything, you create an opening the state can drive a truck through,” said Daniel L. Toomey, who argued Brown’s case before the Court of Appeals. Today, Debra Brown, the only woman on Indiana’s Death Row, is serving out her sentences in Ohio. Whether or not she will ever see the executioner in the Hoosier State remains up in the air.

Punishment

In August 2000, ruling in a Virginia capital murder case, the U.S. Supreme Court said a murder defendant is entitled to constitutionally adequate legal representation. Coleman's attorneys immediately filed for relief under the high court's ruling and the Court ordered the Indiana Supreme Court to reconsider Coleman's death sentence.

Coleman alleged that during the sentencing phase of his trial his counsel was inadequate and did not bring up mitigating factors that might have spared Coleman from a trip to the electric chair. Alton suffered from a troubled childhood, a personality disorder and brain dysfunction, attorneys said.

The Indiana high court had already upheld his conviction and sentence on direct appeal.

"Given these aggravating circumstances, even had his counsel presented the evidence of Coleman's impoverishment and abuse, we see little likelihood the jury recommendation or the trial judge's sentence would have been different," wrote the Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court.

Even if the state of Indiana spares Alton Coleman, there are any number of prosecutors who are still awaiting a crack at him. The chances of Coleman, or for that matter, Brown, ever seeing the outside of a prison cell are slim. If Indiana takes a pass on Coleman, then Ohio wants its turn, and if the Buckeye State spares his life, then it's on to Kentucky.

Alton Coleman was executed by lethal injection at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility near Lucasville at 10 a.m. Friday, April 26, 2002. He was 46 years old.

He spent his last days fighting tenaciously for his life, but appeals that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court were unsuccessful. Coleman claimed ineffective counsel and that the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment would be violated by having his execution broadcast over closed-circuit television.

The spree killer also charged that his jury was racially biased.

Relatives of Coleman's victims in Illinois and Indiana were able to watch the death sentence being carried out via a secured television link, but no recording was made of the event.

Coleman was executed for the beating death of Marlene Walters, 44, of Norwood, Ohio on July 13, 1984. Harry Walters, the victim's husband, and two of the couple's sons-in-law observed the execution inside the Death House.

His execution, the third since Ohio reinstated the death penalty, was well-covered by media, with the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections reporting that 43 news outlets had applied for credentials, including TV stations, and newspapers in each state where Coleman and Debra Brown killed.

He ordered a huge last meal: filet mignon with sauteed mushrooms, fried chicken breasts, corn bread, biscuits and brown gravy, french fries, broccoli with cheese, salad with french dressing, onion rings, collard greens, sweet potato pie with whipped cream, butter pecan ice cream and a cherry Coke.

Six Thousand Days

Alton Coleman spent more than 6,000 days on death row in Ohio's Mansfield Correctional Institution and used nearly every means available to save his life.

During his more than 16 years as a condemned prisoner, Coleman was described by prison officials as a model inmate who enjoyed the media attention his crime spree and status as one of the first Ohio inmates in decades to realistically face the executioner. He particularly enjoyed speaking to female reporters, and often tried to use his "celebrity" status to curry favors such as girlie magazines and money for the commissary from those who sought to interview him.

The appeals process for capital crimes is lengthy, even when the condemned inmate forgoes his or her right of appeal. Under Ohio law, the first review of a conviction with a death penalty specification is a "direct appeal" that examines the trial record to ensure there were no errors leading to an incorrect verdict and sentence. This direct appeal involves a review by the trial court and the state Supreme Court. Depending on the date of the conviction, as was the case for Coleman, an intermediate state appeals court also reviews a case on direct appeal.

Coleman's direct appeal began shortly after his 1985 conviction, but was not concluded until September 1989.

Alton Coleman's next appeal was a "post-conviction" review, which looks at the case to determine if any errors outside the trial record resulted in a violation of his state or federal Constitutional rights or to an incorrect verdict and sentence. His post-conviction review motion was filed in September 1990 with the trial court in Hamilton County, Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected his post-conviction appeal more than three years later.

Ohio capital defendants are given the opportunity for a third state appeal, a so-called "Murnahan Appeal," named after the inmate who brought the first action of this type. In a Murnahan Appeal, the inmate challenges the effectiveness of the lawyers who handled the previous state appellate actions. Effectiveness of trial counsel is examined in the post-conviction review.

Coleman's Murnahan Appeal was rejected six months after it was filed, on August 3, 1994 -- some 10 years after he was first indicted for the crimes for which he was convicted.

Having run out of state appeals, Coleman turned to the federal judiciary for relief. He filed a habeas corpus action -- a claim alleging that his federal Constitutional rights had been violated -- in December 1994 that the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati rejected in February 1998.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals received Coleman's notice of appeal of the lower court ruling in May 1998 and for the next two years, the state and the prisoner filed briefs with the appellate court. On December 5, 2000, more than 15 years after his conviction, the two sides squared off in oral arguments before a three-judge panel. Those judges rejected Coleman's habeas petition in March 2001.

On October 15, 2001 the United States Supreme Court denied Coleman's request to review the lower federal court rulings. The way was clear for the Ohio Supreme Court to set an execution date, which it did, choosing April 26, 2002.

Coleman was not out of procedural means to escape execution, however. Once the high court sets an execution date, the state clemency process begins. During his clemency hearing before the Ohio Parole Board -- which can recommend clemency to the Governor -- Coleman's attorneys submitted an apology of sorts from the killer and tried to convince the board that Alton was mentally incompetent.

Their pleas were rejected, and the Parole Board did not recommend that Governor Bob Taft grant Coleman clemency.

When Taft announced that he would not spare the killer, Coleman quickly filed suit in federal court, alleging that the state's clemency process was flawed. That suit was handily rejected by both the district and appeals courts.

In the days leading up to April 26, Coleman's attorneys repeatedly petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court with various arguments as to why Coleman should not die. In the last two weeks of his life, Coleman sent six unsuccessful petitions to the High Court, all of which were rejected without comment.

That Court, like so many others, saw no reason why Alton Coleman, who killed so many people without a second thought, should be allowed to live.

Their thoughts were perhaps best summed up by Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Rich Niehaus, who sentenced Coleman to death.

"I sentenced him and knowing this day has come, well, I got a queasy feeling, " Niehaus said on the day Coleman paid for his crimes. "But if there was anyone who is Exhibit 1 in an argument for the death penalty, it was Alton Coleman."

Unfinished Business

Alton Coleman reportedly spent a fitful night in the death house at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville prior to his execution. Although death row is located in Mansfield, condemned prisoners are taken to Lucasville for execution of their sentence.

He ate a hearty "special meal" (Ohio convicts don't have a "last meal" because they are served breakfast the morning of the execution), but slept poorly, officials who were present said. The morning of his execution, he had a few bites of toast.

He had been baptized two days earlier by a Dallas-based televangelist, and had said goodbye to his family a week prior to his execution. It was their first visit to him in years and they could not attend the execution because "they could not get a ride," the spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction told the media.

The observation room overlooking the execution chamber in Lucasville holds 12 people, and an accordion door separates the convict's witnesses from those representing the victims. Alton invited a spiritual advisor and his legal team. The number of witnesses representing victims presented a logistical challenge to prison officials who finally had to obtain special permission from the Ohio Supreme Court to set up closed-circuit television for the overflow crowd of 18 people (not including media witnesses) who came to watch Coleman die.

In typical fashion, Alton claimed the closed-circuit TV violated his civil rights and sought to block the move. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected that argument.

At shortly before 10 a.m., wearing a "non-denominational" prayer shawl with crosses and Stars of David over his prison blues, Alton Coleman walked into the death chamber and quietly laid himself on the gurney. He remained still as the guards fastened restraints on him and attached the lines that would contain the three chemicals to a shunt already in place in his arm.

He looked over at the witness room and appeared to say something, but it was impossible to hear him through the glass.

A prison official asked if he had any final words, he shook his head and then the executioner pushed the button that would begin the execution process.

Although just three chemicals are used to execute a prisoner, one to induce unconsciousness, another to stop breathing and a third to stop the heart, eight syringes, operated automatically once the button is pushed are required. It often takes two or three very long minutes for all the syringes to empty.

As the drugs began flowing, Alton Coleman began reciting the 23rd Psalm. By the time he reached "he leadeth me beside the still waters," the sodium pentothal began to take effect and Coleman lost consciousness.

He was pronounced death at 10:13 a.m. EST.

Some of the survivors of Coleman's victims considered their work just half finished.

The grandmother of 7-year-old murder victim Tamika Turks of Gary, Ind., said survivors won't know peace until Coleman's accomplice, Debra Brown, is put to death by the state of Indiana.

"One chapter has been closed, but there's another chapter: Debra Brown," she said. "Until that's done, there can be no peace. (But) we'll never be the same because what they took from us, they cannot give back to us."

Bibliography

Chicago Tribune, July 22, 1984, “Police Bask In Glory Of Fugitives' Arrests”

Detroit Free Press:
June 28, 1984, “FBI, Police Search For Slaying Suspect”
July 4, 1984, “Unsuspecting Residents Aid 2 Fugitives, FBI Says”
Friday, July 6, 1984, “Mother Fears 'Some Kind Of Spell'”
July 15, 1984,“Mother Frets For Daughter With Fugitive”
July 15, 1984, “Alton Coleman 'Smooth As Silk': Police Say Fugitive Has Frustrated Justice”
July 21, 1984, “Alton Coleman Held In Illinois: Bond Set At $25 Million Cash”
July 21, 1984, “The Chase For Alton Coleman”

Associated Press
February 13, 1987, “1984 Midwest Crime Spree Continues To Exact Price In Pain”

Indianapolis Star
August 30, 1991, “Murder Spree Conviction Upheld”
November 17, 1991, “Confession From A Killer: Did Police Cross The Line?”
February 3, 1998, “Lone Woman On State's Death Row Is In Ohio”
April 25, 2000, “High Court Edict May Aid State Death Row Inmate: Justices Tell Court To
Restudy Sentence Of Murderer Who Claims He Received Ineffective Legal Counsel.”

Fantasy Death Row

Next Up: April 26, 2002

Alton Coleman Ohio Conviction: Made Whitey feel sexually inadequate. Also killed a bunch of women. Handicapping Factors Pro:Once made the F.B.I.'s most wanted list so he has a modicum of fame to trade on... Never actually admitted his guilt for what that's worth...

Ohio was all assholes and elbows the last time they tried to kill someone, John Byrd Jr, requiring 4 or 5 death dates before they finally made one stick... It's certainly not a highly tuned killing machine... Con: After the paucity of background on folks being executed here lately it's a relief to find someone whose case is so well documented. That's a great story if you go on and click his picture there.

Unfortunately, this is the rare case where the more attention he recieves the worse his chances get... The Supreme Court has rejected his appeal and refused to stay his date... House Pick: A detective who was on his trail characterized him as the Black Ted Bundy, smooth and disarming and all that.

His schoolmates, on the other hand called him "Pissy" as he was prone to whizzing on himself in class. If you've got your home psychotherapy kits handy you might have some fun with that little nugget. But of the many hats he wore and names he answered to, none is more compelling than this.

He is known as the only man in America with a death sentence in 3 seperate states. So, if you are going by sheer quantity, that makes him the consensus choice for "Baddest Man in America". I guess on the bright side there's 47 other states that don't have any immediate plans to kill him. The Line is a Wise to Ohio: 9 - 5 Dead as Hell

The line is unscientific and is based solely on our research. If you know anything that might affect the odds -for instance you work in the courts or the penal system or, hell, you committed the crime- please contact us here.

Alton Coleman on deck? Serial killer may be next for execution


Thursday, February 21, 2002

COLUMBUS - (AP).- Serial killer Alton Coleman, convicted of slayings in the Midwest in 1984, could be the next inmate scheduled to die in Ohio.

The state asked the Ohio Supreme Court on Feb. 6 to set an execution date for Mr. Coleman, 45, who also faces death sentences in Indiana and Illinois. “We believe that his case is the next one up, but there's no guarantee with the court system and different issues he can raise,” Bret Crow, a spokesman for Attorney General Betty Montgomery, said Wednesday.

The state Tuesday executed John W. Byrd, the third inmate to die since Ohio reinstated the death penalty in 1981 and the first to proclaim his innocence. It was the second execution in eight months, following Jay D. Scott's execution by injection in June.

The Ohio Public Defender's Office said that as many as 10 death row inmates could exhaust their appeals this year.

Most are awaiting a review of their case by the U.S. Supreme Court. Such reviews are very rare, said David Bodiker, the Ohio Public Defender. “The chances of getting one of those things heard is greater than the lottery,” Mr. Bodiker said.

Mr. Coleman's attorney, Dale Baich, would not discuss the likelihood of an execution date. “I don't think it's appropriate to make predictions,” he said Wednesday. “Circumstances in these cases may change, and it doesn't serve the public, the victims or Mr. Coleman to engage in such speculation.”

Mr. Coleman, of Waukegan, Ill., received two death sentences in Ohio. One was for the July 11, 1984, strangulation death of Tonnie Storey, 15, of Over-the-Rhine.

The second was for the July 13, 1984, beating death of Marlene Walters, 44, of Norwood. An execution date could depend on the resolution of conflicting rulings by the same federal court.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Mr. Coleman's death sentence in the Storey case after concluding that his attorneys didn't adequately represent him in a 1985 trial.

The court, however, upheld the conviction. A different three-judge panel of the court had already upheld Mr. Coleman's death sentence for Mrs. Walters' death.

Mr. Coleman's attorneys have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Walters ruling. They argue that because the same two attorneys represented Mr. Coleman in both Ohio cases, it is inconsistent that his sentence be overturned in one case and upheld in the other. “It would be very unfair to execute someone when two different panels of the same court reach conflicting results,” Mr. Baich said.

Oppose the Execution of Alton Coleman!

Ohio is preparing to execute Alton Coleman, a man whose trial was fundamentally unfair. During the trial, not only did the prosecution use racially discriminatory tactics to exclude African-Americans from the jury, but the jury was never told about Mr. Coleman's mental illness.

Whether you support or oppose capital punishment, there is mounting evidence that the system is broken. A review of national death penalty judgments over a 23-year period has found a national error rate of 68 percent. Executions should not take place when people are being sentenced unfairly.

Urge Governor Taft to Commute Alton Coleman's Death Sentence to Life in Prison!

The prosecutors who tried Mr. Coleman adhered to the racially discriminatory jury selection practices. In Alton Coleman's trial, prosecutors used 9 of their 12 jury strikes to eliminate qualified African Americans from the jury.

The prosecution has never been forced to explain why these otherwise qualified jurors were removed. This pattern of racial discrimination in jury selection is highly suspect and completely unacceptable when someone's life is on the line.

People who suffer from serious mental illness must not be subject to the death penalty. As vulnerable members of society, the mentally ill are tremendously over-represented in Ohio executions.

Alton Coleman's impending execution is part of this disturbing trend. During his trial, the jury never heard about Coleman's mental illness or his childhood abuse. Of the three men executed in Ohio since 1976, two have had serious mental illness. Mr. Coleman's execution would make that figure three out of four.

Judge Throws Out Coleman's Lawsuit Over Televised Execution

April 23, 2002

COLUMBUS, Ohio - (AP) A judge today threw out a lawsuit that sought to prevent the state from televising the scheduled execution of Waukegan's Alton Coleman to relatives of the five victims he was convicted of killing.

Judge Beverly Pfeiffer of Franklin County Common Pleas Court said Coleman's lawyers presented no evidence to justify their claim that broadcasting the execution on closed-circuit television would violate his rights.

Because there are so many witnesses from victims' families, the state plans to let them watch Coleman's execution from a closed-circuit television in a room of the prison where he will be executed.

Coleman's lawyers argued that state law prohibits broadcasting equipment at executions, but Pfeiffer said the law referred only to recording an execution. "It's a closed-circuit transmission," she said. "It goes from one room to another. There is no capability for any recording to be made."

Coleman's lawyers said they were considering appealing. "The judge has sanctioned Mr. Coleman's execution to being a spectator sport," said Lori Leon, an attorney representing Coleman.

Coleman is scheduled to die Friday by injection for the beating death of a woman in 1984. He also has been convicted of four murders that occurred during a multistate crime spree in 1984 and has been sentenced to death in Indiana and Illinois.

He is the only current inmate to face death sentences in three states, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Death Penalty Information Center.

On Monday, Coleman asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his claim that prosecutors chose a racially biased jury 17 years ago. He also asked Justice John Paul Stevens, who oversees death penalty appeals in Ohio, to delay the execution while the court considers the appeal. "This is an important constitutional question and it should be reviewed in due course, not under the press of an impending execution," Dale Baich, one of Coleman's attorneys, said in a statement Monday.

On April 16, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on a technical procedure and refused to postpone Coleman's execution. Coleman, 46, has accused prosecutors of racism during jury selection in his 1985 trial for the beating death of Marlene Walters, 44, in the Cincinnati suburb of Norwood, on July 13, 1984.

Coleman's lawyers claimed that then-Hamilton County Prosecutor Arthur Ney's team improperly removed nine of 12 black jurors from the trial. Coleman is black.

On Friday, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Coleman's request came too late. It should have been raised on the direct appeal of his conviction, rather than after his appeals ran out, the court said.

Joe Case, a spokesman for Attorney General Betty Montgomery, said Monday that Montgomery agrees with the Ohio Supreme Court that the racism appeal is too late. Montgomery plans a response to the latest filing, Case said.

Alton Coleman: His time to die

April 23, 2002

As Alton Coleman pedaled into blue-collar Norwood, not even 24 hours had lapsed since he had earned the rare distinction of becoming an 11th member of the FBI's ''Most Wanted'' list.

With six weeks, 600 miles and six bodies behind him, the serial killer arrived having perfected his predatory pattern during his murderous migration across the Midwest.

The horror about to visit 4118 Floral Ave. on the muggy morning of July 13, 1984, was typical Coleman. He would hide behind a facade of charm to win over his unsuspecting victims and then strike.

Dropped off in Cincinnati five days earlier by a minister they befriended, Coleman and his companion, Debra Denise Brown, figured it was time to move on before they were betrayed by what they had left behind in Walnut Hills.

The near-nude and strangled body of 15-year-old Tonnie Storey - ''I hate niggers. Death'' scratched into a wall and outlined in lipstick above her - still lay undiscovered in a building on May Street.

Coleman needed cash, a change of clothes and a car to continue life on the run. And he had no qualms about killing to obtain them. Noticing a camping trailer for sale outside the home of Harry and Marlene Walters around 11 a.m., Coleman and Ms. Brown sized up the opportunity and parked their bikes.

Again employing the convincing and friendly manner of a con man, the 28-year-old Coleman worked to earn the trust of the middle-age white couple, to disarm them of suspicion, as they haggled over a price for the camper.

A deal struck with the ''very polite'' man, the Walterses invited the couple inside their home to sip lemonade. As Harry Walters sat on a couch talking with his guest about the trailer title, Coleman picked up a heavy wooden candlestick and expressed admiration for the piece.

It was the last thing Walters would recall. ''I've seen brutal homicides, but this is it. These are No. 1. They were cruel, savage,'' Norwood Detective Capt. Thomas Williams said amid the manhunt for Coleman and Ms. Brown and the Walters' stolen red Plymouth Valiant.

Sherri Walters, 19, found her parents at the bottom of the blood-spattered basement steps when she arrived home at 3:45 p.m. Her mother was dead, her father barely alive.

A bloody sheet lay over the head of Mrs. Walters, 44, a mother of three and Sunday school teacher and librarian at nearby Grace United Methodist Church. Struck 20 to 25 times with a soft drink bottle, magazine rack and other items, her skull had been pulverized, her face and scalp raked a dozen times with a pair of Vise Grips.

Walters, then 45, lay in a coma. The candlestick had driven a sliver of skull into his brain. He had been stabbed in the abdomen and a rope cinched around his neck. Both he and his wife had their hands and feet bound.

Harry Walters saw neither the death nor the funeral of his wife of 26 years. But, he will witness the death of her killer to confirm the receipt of justice and closure he says should have been his a decade ago. ''On April 5, 1958, Marlene and I were married, exchanging the vows 'until death do us part.' We were parted by murder,'' Walters says. ''Execution is the solution. The Bible tells me so.'' Lucasville will be a busy place Friday as 17 witnesses arrive from three states to watch Coleman die.

Nearly 18 years after terrorizing the Midwest during a six- state spree of eight murders, seven kidnappings, four rapes and numerous assaults, home invasions and other crimes, Coleman's number is up.

Absent an unlikely court stay or grant of clemency, Coleman, 46, of Waukegan, Ill., will die by lethal injection at 10 a.m. Friday at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Ohio's fourth execution since early 1999.

Ohio in effect also will carry out the death sentences imposed on Coleman in Indiana and Illinois for the murders of 7- and 9-year-old girls as it executes the only man in the nation condemned in three states. Walters, his son Daniel and son-in-law Scott Lillard will see the execution in person from behind a death chamber window.

In another room, at least 14 more witnesses - whose daughters, sisters, brothers, mothers and nieces or nephews were killed by Coleman - will watch the execution live on closed-circuit TV.

Among those present will be Harry Storey, the father of Tonnie Storey, and her aunt, Paulette Anderson. Coleman and Mrs. Brown both were sentenced to death for the murder of the ''B'' student at Bloom Junior High School.

However, Ms. Brown's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by Gov. Richard Celeste in 1991 and a federal appeals court last year found errors in the Storey trial and ordered Coleman resentenced. ''This is someone who deserves to meet his maker. He is one of the most vicious, cold-blooded serial killers in the history of the Midwest,'' says Hamilton County Prosecutor Mike Allen.

Whether it was helping a woman struggling with a bas ket of laundry, expressing a seemingly sincere interest in religion or politely inquiring about a camper for sale, Coleman was a deadly chameleon. Speaking of the murder of Mrs. Walters, Ohio Assistant Attorney General Jim Canepa observed: ''He smooth-talked his way into their house. He's convincing. And, he convinced all of these people into their graves.''

A rarity as a black serial killer, Coleman preferred to victimize African Americans - with Marlene Walters his only white murder victim - and once said he was forced by blacks to kill other members of his race.

By the time he killed 9-year-old Vernita Wheat in Waukegan, Ill., on May 29, 1994, Coleman was well known to Chicago-area police as a sexual predator.

While only once convicted and sent to prison (where he forced three other inmates to have sex), his rap sheet contained four arrests for rape. He had even been accused by a half-sister of sexually molesting his 9-year-old niece.

A prison psychiatric profile found Coleman, a ninth grade dropout with an IQ on the lower edge of normal, to be ''a pansexual willing to have intercourse with any object, women, men, children, whatever.''

Coleman reportedly was thrown into a garbage can by his mentally ill, prostitute mother as an infant. ''Unfortunately, someone heard my cries and rescued me before death could take me,'' Coleman recently wrote. ''In my life, I had fear, lots of pain and many tears.''

The boy was raised mostly by his grandmother, who oper ated a brothel and gambling house. As a child in a whorehouse, Coleman was physically and sexually abused and exposed to beastiality, pedophilia and group sex whose participants included his mother and grandmother. His grandmother also purportedly practiced voodoo and forced the young boy to kill animals and harvest their body parts for use in her potions.

Coleman's habit of soiling his clothes earned him the nickname of ''Pissy'' in the Market Street ghetto in Waukegan. ''Alton walked around all day in his own waste. He had no clean clothes,'' said the Rev. Robert Evans, a neighbor. ''He had a very profound, tragic life as a youngster. He has to be responsible for these crimes, but given the circumstances presented, his life should be spared,'' Rev. Evans said.

Even as his execution nears, Coleman and Ms. Brown stick to their story - which prosecutors dismiss as a fable - that she killed Mrs. Walters. ''I will not deny that I have destroyed lives, caused pain, grief and suffering beyond comprehension in 1984, but I did not kill Mrs. Marlene Walters or even knew she had died,'' Coleman wrote the Ohio Parole Board.

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Ohio Execution Alert: Alton Coleman

Scheduled Execution Date and Time: 4/26/02 10:00 AM EST

Alton Coleman, a black man on death row in Ohio, is scheduled to be executed on April 26th for the murder of Marlene Walters. Coleman has been on death row since 1986, when he was convicted in two separate death sentences.

Oddly, the same court has upheld Coleman’s other death sentence, for which he is now set to be executed. In spite of the overwhelming collection of mitigating circumstances, which the same court has acknowledged, Coleman has run into a dead-end with his appeals. Please petition the Governor of Ohio to overturn Alton Coleman’s second death sentence.

The Scratchin' Post Crime Archives

Alton Coleman & Debra Brown ( Kills: 8)

Alton Coleman, a black man, thought other blacks were forcing him to kill members of his race. He was diagnosed by a prison psychiatrist as having pansexual propensities, that is, willingness "to have intercourse with any object, women, men, children, whatever."

In the summer of 1984, he teamed up with twenty-one year old Debra Brown for a brutal rampage across the midwest. They were arrested in Evanston, Illinois after a crime spree in which they committed a new act of violence each day. Alton was sentenced to death.

Dave's Serial Killer Archives

Alton Coleman was born in November 1955, in a Waukegan, Illinois ghetto neighborhood, the bastard middle child of three boy's and two girls. Alton's mother first gave birth at the young age of fourteen. According to police records, she was a known prostitute.

Alton's mother also showed no interest in him when he was born; hence, he was shoved off onto to her mother, Alma Hosea. "She threw him away, just like you'd throw away garbage," Alma later told a Chicago Tribune reporter.

In school, Alton was nicknamed "pissy" by his classmates because he seemed to have a tendency to wet his pants quite often. He eventually dropped out of grade school and began working part time at a kitchen in a local veterans hospital.

As he grew up, he acquired a new nickname on the street: "Big Al". He was known to carry a knife and a hair-trigger temper. He often times ran with gangs. This even more so helped to cultivate his nasty disposition. He quickly had numerous arrests under his belt. Most dealing with sexual related crimes.

In 1973, Alton was charged with the robbery, kidnapping and rape of an unidentified elderly Waukegan woman. He quickly plea-bargained and received a two-to-six year sentence for robbery. He was then placed in Joliet State Prison.

While serving time in Joliet, Alton was accused numerous times of molesting other inmates. A psychiatric profile identified him not as BI-sexual but as, "pansexual, willing to have intercourse with any object-- man, woman, child.”

Once free on parole, Alton wasted no time getting arrested again for rape on two separate occasions in the early 1980's. Although both times he was acquitted when the jury believed his victims had consented to the sex.

Alton soon met a young teenage girl and was quickly married. However, after only a six-month stint, his new bride left him and arranged for police protection while she moved her belongings out. She later stated that she could no longer take his fascinations with bondage, young girls, and violent sex.

In the summer of 1983, Alton was charged with taking indecent liberties with a child, his own niece. However, the charges were quickly dropped when the child's mother changed her story and claimed that the accusations were false. Apparently terrified of Coleman, she changed her mind.

Soon after the summer incident, Alton was accused of raping a fourteen-year-old Waukegan girl at knifepoint. He also became a suspect in the rape and murder of fifteen-year-old Gina Frazier.

Reduction of bail in the Waukegan case put him on the streets to launch a homicidal rampage almost beyond belief, and earn him a spot on the FBI's 'Most Wanted' list.

Alton quickly jumped bail, and fled with his new girlfriend, twenty-one-year-old Debra Denise Brown, a high school drop out and natural follower, he had met in a Waukegan bar. The pair eventually settled down in Gary, Indiana.

On May 29, 1984, nine-year-old Vernita Wheat, disappeared after her mother let her accompany one "Robert Knight" to Waukegan from her Kenosha, WI, home to retrieve a stereo system. A photo lineup quickly identified Alton Coleman as "Robert Knight".

On June 18, 1984, Alton and Debra abducted seven-year-old Tamika Turks, and her nine-year-old aunt, while walking near their home in Gary, IN. Coleman and Brown took the two young children to a secluded wooded area. Alton placed his hand over Tamika's mouth as she started to struggle.

Angered, he began to viciously stomp her face and chest with his feet. When he finally tired of this, he raped and strangled her. Alton then took Tamika's aunt and brutally beat and raped her while Brown held her down. Afterwards he strangled her and left her for dead.

However, unbeknownst to Brown and Coleman the young girl had only blacked-out, when she awakened she stumbled out of the woods and was discovered by a local man. She was immediately taken to a local hospital where she was treated for her injuries. She was lucky. A search was quickly launched for Tamika.

On June 19, 1984, the body of Tamika Turks was found in a swampy area of woods. The same day the decomposing remains of Vernita Wheat were discovered in Waukegan, in an abandoned building.

During this time, the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico Virginia began to prepare a profile on Alton Coleman, to assist police in their search. The same day the two children’s bodies were discovered, June 19, twenty-five-year-old Donna Williams, disappeared after last being seen with "a nice couple from Boston".

On June 24, 1984, Coleman & Brown accosted a Detroit woman at knifepoint and demanded that she drive them to Ohio. She amazingly was able to save herself by intentionally smashing into a truck, and fleeing on foot. The couple quickly fled in her damaged vehicle.

On June 27, 1984, the stolen 1976-model car was found abandoned in a southwest Detroit alley.

On June 28, 1984, Coleman & Brown invaded the Dearborn Heights suburban home of sixty-two-year-old Palmer Jones, and his fifty-year-old wife Maggie. They were beaten mercilessly with a club, robbed of $86.00, and their late model automobile was stolen.

On June 30, 1984, Coleman and Brown carjacked two men at gunpoint, throwing one (an invalid) out of the moving vehicle. The other man was fortunate enough to be released.

On July 2, 1984, Another Detroit couple was attacked in their home; this time savagely beaten with a pipe and subjected to an incoherent harangue by Coleman on how blacks were forcing him to kill blacks. Coleman then robbed them of $100.00 and stole their car.

Coleman & Brown then drove to Toledo, where they handcuffed and assaulted another couple in their home and stole their car. Shortly thereafter, Coleman and a Toledo bartender exchanged shots when Coleman tried to abduct one of the bar's patrons.

Around this time in Cincinnati the mother of fifteen-year-old Tonnie Storey, reported her daughter missing. On July 7, 1984, Coleman & Brown spent the night with thirty-year-old Virginia Temple, and her ten-year-old daughter, Rochelle.

The mother and daughter were soon to be raped and murdered. Their bodies later discovered stuffed in a crawlspace.

On July 11, 1984, the decomposing corpse of Donna Williams was discovered. It was soon apparent that she had been strangled to death with a pair of panty hose.

Alton Coleman was now added to the FBI's ten most wanted list. On July 13, 1984, Marlene Walters became the first white victim; she was bludgeoned to death in her Norwood, OH, home. Her husband Harry somehow survived the brutal attack and identified Coleman & Brown as the killers.

On July 16, 1984, forty-five-year-old Oline Carmichael Jr., a Lexington political-science college professor, was walking to his vehicle when the killer couple abducted him.

They drove his car to Dayton, Ohio and then locked him in the trunk. He was found unharmed hours later. Also later that same day, an elderly minister and his wife were found, battered in their Dayton home, they were lucky to be alive.

The minister's stolen station wagon was later recovered at a car wash in Indianapolis, where seventy-seven-year-old Eugene Scott, and his car were now missing.

Police however, soon found him dead in a ditch near Zionsville. His hands had been slashed with a knife, and he had been shot four times in the head with a .38-caliber handgun.

In Waukegan, Coleman's seventy-two-year-old grandmother issued a tape-recorded appeal, "Alton, please, in Jesus' name, for God's sake, give yourself up so you can go and get well," she pleaded, "Please, your killing me. I'm worried to death."

On July 19, 1984, in Cincinnati, the partly nude decomposing corpse of fifteen-year-old Tonnie Storey, was found. She had been raped, brutally stabbed and shot twice in the head.

On July 20, 1984, shortly before noon, the bloody seven-week reign of terror finally came to an end in Evanston, IL. An anonymous tip, lead to the couples arrest in a local park where they were watching a neighborhood basketball game. Police discovered two blood stained knives and a .38-caliber snub-nosed revolver on the couple.

The manhunt was over and authorities in five states suspected the couple of at least eight murders, numerous abductions, sexual assaults, beatings, and thefts involving both local and federal offenses.

It was quickly decided that Ohio authorities should get the first crack at the couple. "We believe prosecution (in Ohio) is most likely to result in the swiftest imposition of the death penalty," U.S. attorney Dan Webb stated. Before the trials began the couple signed legal documents entering them into a common-law marriage.

During separate trials in Cincinnati, both Coleman and Brown were convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Mrs. Walters. Coleman was sentenced to die in Ohio's electric chair, and Debra was sentenced to life in prison.

The jury was shocked during the penalty phase when Brown took the stand and insisted that she alone had killed Mrs. Walters. Her own trial had already been concluded. "I killed the bitch and I don't give a dam. I had fun out of it," Debra boasted, in what seemed to be a desperate plea to save her lovers life. She also claimed to have murdered several other people during the couple's crime spree, and said that she did not "give a dam about anyone" except Coleman. Regardless, her lover was to her dismay, sentenced to death.

For the murder of Tonnie Storey, the killer couple was convicted and sentenced to death. During the trial Coleman boasted that if he had not been so mentally exhausted when arrested that he would have easily killed the officers.

The next trial took place in Indiana where the couple was both sentenced to death for the murder of Tamika Turk.

Back in Waukegan, Coleman was sentenced to death by lethal injection for the murder of Vernita Wheat. During the trial Coleman told the jurors that he did not want mercy, "I'm a dead man. I'm dead already. You are talking to a dead man, not a live man."

Prosecutors believe that Coleman was the only man in the United States under four separate death sentences at the time. There are no plans to prosecute Coleman or Brown on the remaining deaths in the Midwest murder spree.

In June of 1997, Debra Brown, residing at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville, Ohio, launched a self serving campaign to try and overturn her death sentence in Indiana where she is the only female among 51 people under active death sentences. Alton Coleman remains on death row in Ohio at the Mansfield Correctional Institution.

18 years later, circle of death will close with killer's execution

April 17, 2002

Three months after her 9-year-old daughter's body was found strangled in an abandoned house, Juanita Wheat packaged up her baby's clothes, her toys, stuffed animals and her books and donated them to charity. "I just couldn't look at them anymore," Wheat said. "There were too many memories."

Each time she looked at Vernita's possessions, she would think about the happy girl who loved to hold a pencil like a microphone and sing "Let's Hear it for the Boy." She would think about the straight-A student who loved to read comic books and fuss over her little brother. Juanita Wheat would think about the last time she saw her only daughter, and she would think about the nice man who took the girl to his Kenosha apartment to pick up stereo speakers he planned to give Juanita Wheat as a belated Mother's Day present. It's been almost 18 years since Coleman and his girlfriend, Debra Brown, left a trail of carnage in the Midwest.

In the summer of 1984, the couple were linked to 8 murders and more than a dozen robberies, rapes, abductions and beatings in 6 states - ranging from a college professor who was abducted in Kentucky and left unharmed in his car trunk to an Ohio woman who was beaten to death in her home.

The multistate crime spree landed Coleman on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list as frantic police found more bodies and checked out hundreds of sightings as the couple moved around the Midwest.

Coleman, now 46, was sentenced to death in Illinois for Vernita Wheat's homicide; in Ohio for the murders of Tonnie Storey, 15, of Cincinnati and Marlene Walters, 44, of Norwood, Ohio; and in Indiana for the slaying of Tamika Turks, 7, of Gary, Ind.

One of about 3,700 people on death row in the United States, Coleman is the only person facing death sentences in three states, said Brenda Bowser, communications director for the Death Penalty Information Center.

Brown was not a suspect in Vernita Wheat's death. But she was convicted in Ohio of Storey's murder and sentenced to death. Her death sentence was later commuted to life in prison.

On the day Vernita Wheat's body was found, the body of Tamika Turks turned up. A 9-year-old girl abducted with Tamika testified that Coleman sexually assaulted them and then stomped on Tamika's head and chest, killing her. Soon, other bodies were discovered.

Coleman's rampage started in this community of 88,000, only a few miles from the Illinois border. Barring a last-minute reprieve, Coleman's life will end at 10 a.m. April 26 in a death row chamber in Ohio. By the time Coleman and Brown were arrested while sitting on an Evanston, Ill., park bench, 8 people were dead, including Vernita Wheat, who disappeared on May 29, 1984.

Her decomposed body was found in the bathroom of an abandoned house in Waukegan on June 19,trussed with nine-feet of television cable and her hands bound. Coleman's fingerprint was found on a door leading into the bathroom, and he was seen with Vernita in Waukegan, according to testimony at his trial in 1987 where a jury deliberated for 3 hours before convicting him of killing the Kenosha girl.

Although the clothing matched the shirt and pants Vernita was wearing when she left with Coleman, authorities wanted to use dental records to determine her identity. But Vernita had perfect teeth and had never visited a dentist.

So police ended up matching fingerprints from the 3rd-grader's schoolbooks to the body.

'Oh no, oh no' Willie Mae Peebles remembers going to the Waukegan police station with Juanita Wheat, her neighbor. She recalled getting the awful news about the little girl she called by her nickname, Tracy, who often came to her house to snack on sandwiches and watermelon. "The police said it didn't look good. We sat in a room and they got Juanita and took her somewhere to tell her Tracy was dead," Peebles said. "She came back and said, 'Oh no, oh no.'" Juanita Wheat figured the police would tell her "they had found her and she was OK." "I couldn't believe he'd kill her. I still can't believe he'd do that," Juanita Wheat said in an interview last week in her Kenosha apartment.

Coleman met Wheat as she stood outside her apartment hanging her laundry to dry. He said his name was Michael Knight and that he lived nearby. He helped her with her laundry and a few days later offered to take Vernita and her 5-year-old brother Brandon to a carnival.

Shortly after returning from the carnival, he asked Juanita Wheat if he could take the kids to his apartment to pick up stereo speakers. She said Brandon was too little to go since it was getting late but that Vernita could help as long as she returned soon because it was a school night.

Brandon Wheat said there's no doubt in his mind that he would have been killed had he gone with Coleman. "I really think he did want to do something bad with her," he said.

Out of sight - Aside from the victims who survived the attacks and the families of the victims who didn't, the memory of Coleman and Brown has dimmed. "He's been gone for so long, he's kind of been out of sight, out of mind," Waukegan Deputy Police Chief Bill Biang said.

But during the summer of 1984, Coleman and Brown were big news as authorities in several states published their pictures and warned residents to lock their doors. Coleman was smooth and likable, said Kenosha police Lt. Doug Stein, who was a detective when Juanita Wheat reported her daughter missing. "He was a serial killer, obviously. He was a personable person. If I had to pair him up with somebody, who was that guy who killed all those girls in Florida? Ted Bundy? He reminds me of Ted Bundy," Stein said.

Once Kenosha police realized Vernita Wheat wasn't a runaway but likely a kidnap victim, the investigation quickly focused on Coleman.

Authorities learned Coleman didn't fit the profile of an outwardly scary man, Stein said. "He was the kind of guy who could talk his way in and the type where people would feel comfortable leaving their daughter with him," Stein said. "He was looking for people who were vulnerable who would listen to his spiel."

Coleman never admitted to any of the crimes he was convicted of, though there were plenty of witnesses and physical evidence, said Marc Hansen, a Waukegan police lieutenant at the time of Vernita's homicide. "All he would say is he knew the girl's family in Kenosha," said Hansen, now an investigator in the Lake County state's attorney's office.

Detectives talked to people who saw Vernita in Waukegan with Coleman. The time of her death was pinpointed through insect larvae, and his fingerprint was found on the door leading to the room where her body was found. "This guy is the scum of the earth," Hansen said. "I don't think any of this would have happened in today's world because he was able to, in his previous arrests for rape... intimidate the victims."

Coleman refused a written request for an interview. His public defender, Dale Baich, did not return a phone call seeking comment.

However, Baich faxed a statement from Coleman's brother and 2 sisters, who live in Illinois. "We love our brother. We offer sympathy and prayers to the victims and their families," the family said in the statement. They said that while there's no excuse for Coleman's actions, there's an explanation. "We ask that people understand that our brother is sick. He never received the help or treatment that he needed when he was a baby, a child and a young adult. Instead, he was forgotten and ignored by society," hisfamily said. "Now, because of his actions, society wants to eliminate him."

'Justice will be served' - Juanita Wheat plans to attend the execution. "All I can say is he has to pay for his wrongdoing. Justice will be served," she said. "I'm quite sure he has suffered for this in (prison). But he hasn't suffered enough yet."

For Brandon Wheat, much of his life has been haunted with memories of his beloved sister, who fixed him breakfast, combed his hair, tied his shoes and played with him every day. He, like his mother, wants Coleman to die. "I'm actually looking forward to it happening for the simple fact that he basically took the oxygen that my sister could have had," he said.

Now serving a 10-year prison sentence for robbery and delivery of a controlled substance, Brandon Wheat said his life would have turned out differently if his sister were alive. "If she was around, I know I wouldn't be in this situation I am in right now because we were very close," he said in a phone interview from Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution near Plymouth.

Though he was only 5 when he saw his sister leave with Coleman, the memory is still fresh. "My sister turned around at the door and looked at me and my mom and said 'I love you.' That's the last time I saw her."

Panel weighs arguments about killer's fate

April 17, 2002

Alton Coleman: born damaged or pure evil? Those were the positions staked out yesterday at a clemency hearing to determine whether Coleman -- the only person under death sentences in three states -- should be spared from execution April 26 in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility near Lucasville. A decision by the Ohio Parole Board is expected Friday.

Harry Walters of Norwood -- whose wife, Marlene, 44, was killed by Coleman -- made a simple plea. "Execution is the solution,'' Walters said. "When will the system finally have mercy on the victims, families and give them closure?'' "The family asks not for your sympathy or even your compassion,'' said Scott Lillard, Mr. Walters' son-in-law. "We ask for justice.''

Hamilton County Prosecutor Michael K. Allen called Coleman "pure evil,'' a smooth talker who "convinced all those people into their grave. . . . He's a con man. He's trying to con you.''

In support of mercy, Dale Baich, Coleman's federal public defender, argued that he was born with a damaged brain and suffered a brutally abusive childhood, rendering him unable to control his violent actions. "I believe that society has neglected the crimes against Alton, and now they want to exterminate him,'' said the Rev. Robert Evans, a north Chicago Baptist minister who has known Coleman since childhood.

The board will consider the arguments presented during the three-hour hearing in making a clemency recommendation to Gov. Bob Taft.

Under state law, the governor has final life-and-death authority in capital cases. Taft, a death-penalty supporter, has rejected three previous clemency requests; all three men were subsequently executed.

Coleman, 46, of Waukegan, Ill., is to be executed for the July 13, 1984, beating death of Mrs. Walters. Mr. Walters also was beaten. He suffered permanent brain damage and required repeated surgery over a period of more than two years.

Coleman's death sentence for the murder of Tonnie Storey, 15, of Cincinnati, was overturned on appeal. He also has been sentenced to die in Illinois and Indiana.

Coleman's execution would be Ohio's second in 2002, making it the first year since 1963 that the state has had more than one. The peak was 15 in 1949.

Coleman and girlfriend Debra Denise Brown went on a six-state rampage for seven weeks in the summer of 1984, leaving at least eight people dead and 15 others beaten, robbed and scarred for life.

Four of the dead were Ohioans, including Virginia and Rachelle Temple, a mother and daughter who were raped and killed in their Toledo home.

Members of the Temple family attended the clemency hearing yesterday but were not allowed to speak because the charges in the case were dropped in 1987 by Lucas County. However, the family delivered a powerful, silent message, wearing T-shirts with the victims' pictures on them.

Coleman's attorneys said he is "truly sorry'' for Mrs. Walters' death but continued to claim that Brown was the real murderer. "I will not deny that I have destroyed lives, caused pain, grief and suffering beyond comprehension in 1984, but I did not kill Mrs. Marlene Walters or even know she had died,'' Coleman said in a letter delivered to the parole board.

Dr. Thomas Thompson, a neuropsychologist from Las Cruces, N.M., testified that Coleman probably was brain-damaged at birth because his mother, a prostitute, was a drug- user and an alcoholic. He was a "damaged container filled with damaged contents'' because of a childhood in which he was beaten and exposed to bestiality, violence and sexual abuse. "He's never been able to fully participate in anything he's ever done,'' Thompson said. "Except killing,'' interjected Peter Davis, a parole-board member and former state prisoner advocate.

Meanwhile, Coleman's attorneys yesterday filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional rights were violated during his trial when potential minority jurors were unfairly dismissed. Coleman is black. "Nothing but a delay tactic,'' responded Joe Case, spokesman for Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery. "This issue has been reviewed and rejected in federal courts in the past.''


Psychologist to argue for sparing killer

April 16, 2002

Alton Coleman, accused of at least seven murders during a 1984 crime spree, was born with a dysfunctional brain and could not develop into a normal adult because of a childhood filled with abuse, a psychologist said yesterday.

Attorneys for Coleman, 46, were to plead with Gov. Bob Taft to spare his life during a hearing today before the Ohio Parole Board. Coleman, 46, is not allowed to testify at his hearing under board policy.

His attorneys want Taft to reduce Coleman's death sentence to life without parole. Also yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on a technical procedure and refused to postpone the April 26 execution.

Coleman of Waukegan, Ill., faces a death sentence for the murder of Marlene Walters, 44, who was strangled July 13, 1984, after being attacked in suburban Cincinnati.

Last year, Coleman was evaluated by Thomas C. Thompson, a neuropsychologist from Las Cruces, N.M., who is to testify at today's hearing. Coleman's brain never fully developed, in part because his mother abused alcohol and other drugs during her pregnancy, Thompson said yesterday.

Courts in the Walters case consistently have ruled that the death sentence for Coleman is appropriate, said Joe Case, spokesman for Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery. The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday refused to block Coleman's execution.

Coleman's attorneys appealed on the grounds that only one judge of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had remanded the case to state custody, allowing the execution date to be set. The attorneys said at least a three-judge panel was needed to return the case to the state. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.


U.S. Supreme Court denies Coleman appeal

April 16, 2002 - Associated Press

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by convicted killer Alton Coleman, scheduled to die by injection on April 26 for the murder of a Cincinnati woman. The court, without comment, also refused to block Coleman's execution. Mr. Coleman, 46, was accused of at least 7 slayings during a multistate crime spree in 1984. He also faces death sentences in Indiana and Illinois for crimes committed there during the spree.

Killer convicted in 2 states remains behind bars in Ohio

April 9, 2002

For the past 11 years, Ohio has kept convicted killer Debra Denise Brown behind bars -- at a total cost to taxpayers of $200,000. Brown faces a death sentence in Indiana, while Ohio's case against Brown is dormant, thanks to a commutation by former Gov. Richard F. Celeste. So why is she imprisoned here?

The answer is simple: Indiana hasn't asked for her. "We can't just send her over there,'' said Andrea Dean, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. "A request has to be made by Indiana authorities.''

Brown, 39, the girlfriend and killing mate of Alton Coleman during a summer murder rampage across four states in 1984, was convicted and sentenced to death in both Ohio and Indiana.

However, Celeste -- a death-penalty opponent -- commuted Brown's death sentence to life in prison on Jan. 10, 1991, days before he left office. Celeste said he spared Brown's life because she was retarded, had childlike emotional development and had a "master-slave'' relationship with Coleman.

Brown's death sentence for the murder of 7-year-old Tamika Turks of Gary, Ind., remains in force. She is appealing the Indiana conviction in U.S. District Court in Columbus. Indiana officials are prosecuting the case; Brown's attorneys are court-appointed public defenders from out of state. Indiana officials, including former Gov. Evan Bayh, said immediately after Celeste's commutation that they planned to file a request to extradite Brown.

However, that never happened, perhaps in part because of criticism about the cost of bringing Coleman and Brown to Indiana for trial in 1986 after Ohio already had convicted them of murder.

"Ohio has a lawful right to hold her as well as Indiana,'' said Pam Pattison, spokeswoman for the Indiana Department of Correction. "There has been discussion about bringing her back to Indiana. Ohio kept her,'' Pattison said.

She offered no reason why Indiana has not extradited Brown. Brown is incarcerated at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville at an annual cost now figured at $22,014.

If Brown were shipped to Indiana, she would be housed at the Indiana Women's Prison in Indianapolis where Indiana taxpayers would pick up the annual cost of $19,374. Coleman's execution has been set for April 26 at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility near Lucasville.

He was sentenced to die for the murder of Marlene Walters of Cincinnati. The case is being appealed. Although Coleman and Brown were close at the time of the murders in 1984, they no longer communicate or have any kind of relationship, one of Coleman's attorneys said.


Convicted killer to testify in clemency hearing on April 16

April 2, 2002

Convicted killer Alton Coleman will get a chance for clemency at an Ohio Parole Board hearing April 16. The 12-member board will review Coleman's request to be spared from execution April 26 at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility near Lucasville. The 2 p.m. meeting will be held at board offices, 1030 Alum Creek Dr. The hearing originally was scheduled for April 9, but was moved to April 16 after Dale Baich, one of Coleman's attorneys, complained to Raymond E. Capots, chairman of the board. Baich argued that Coleman wants to testify at his clemency hearing, but would not have time to prepare by April 9. Capots then moved the date back a week.

Gov. Bob Taft will make the final decision once he receives a recommendation from the board. Taft's unlimited clemency power allows him to suspend death sentences, delay an execution, or do nothing and allow it to proceed.

In three previous cases -- Wilford Berry in 1999, Jay D. Scott last year, and John W. Byrd Jr. earlier this year -- Taft refused to stop the executions.

Coleman, now 46, was sentenced to death for murdering Marlene Walters, 44, on July 13, 1984. The Norwood woman was bludgeoned with a wooden candleholder; her husband, Harry, was also badly beaten, but survived.

Coleman also was convicted for killing Tonnie Storey, 15, of Cincinnati, but the death sentence in that case was overturned. Coleman and his former girlfriend, Debra Denise Brown, made the FBI "Most Wanted'' list after going on a killing rampage in five states from May 29 to July 20, 1984.

When Coleman and Brown were arrested in Evanston, Ill., seven people were dead, including four in Ohio, and numerous other people were beaten and robbed.

Brown, incarcerated at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville, is sentenced to death in Indiana. Her Ohio death sentence was commuted by former Gov. Richard F. Celeste. Coleman is the only person in the country under death sentences in three states -- Ohio, Illinois and Indiana.

Lawyers for Alton Coleman have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt his execution

March 9, 2002

Coleman, 46, of Waukegan, Ill., was sentenced to death in two separate Ohio slayings. His execution is scheduled for April 26. Coleman also faces death sentences in Indiana and Illinois.

He was sentenced to die in Ohio for the strangulation death of Tonnie Storey, 15, of Cincinnati, and for the beating death of Marlene Walters, 44, of suburban Cincinnati.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the sentence in the Storey case after concluding that Coleman's attorneys didn't adequately represent him in a 1985 trial. But the court upheld Coleman's conviction in the Storey case and his death sentence in the Walters case.

Coleman's attorney, Dale Baich, on Feb. 25 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an appellate judge's denial of Coleman's request so the high court could resolve conflicting issues on attorney representation in the two cases. But Ohio Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery said she believes the execution should go forward.

The two different cases had separate defense teams, and one of the attorneys in the Walters case said Coleman had ordered him to not introduce certain evidence in the sentencing phase, Montgomery spokesman Joe Case said. "The bottom line is the judge had every right to deny that motion,'' Case said yesterday.March 7, 2002

Waukegan serial killer could be executed in Ohio

February 20, 2002

Serial killer Alton Coleman of Waukegan, convicted of slayings in the Midwest in 1984, could be the next inmate scheduled to die in Ohio. The state asked the Ohio Supreme Court on Feb. 6 to set an execution date for Coleman, who also faces death sentences in Indiana and Illinois. "We believe that his case is the next one up, but there's no guarantee with the court system and different issues he can raise," Bret Crow, a spokesman for Attorney General Betty Montgomery, said Wednesday.

The state on Tuesday executed John W. Byrd, the 3rd inmate to die since Ohio reinstated the death penalty in 1981 and the 1st to proclaim his innocence. It was the 2nd execution in 8 months, following Jay D. Scott's execution by injection in June. The Ohio Public Defender's Office said that as many as 10 death row inmates could exhaust their appeals this year.

Most are awaiting a review of their case by the U.S. Supreme Court. Such reviews are very rare, said David Bodiker, the Ohio Public Defender. "The chances of getting one of those things heard is greater than the lottery," Bodiker said.

Coleman's attorney Dale Baich would not discuss the likelihood of an execution date for his client this year. "I don't think it's appropriate to make predictions," he said Wednesday. "Circumstances in these cases may change, and it doesn't serve the public, the victims or Mr. Coleman to engage in such speculation."

Coleman received 2 death sentences in Ohio. One was for the July 11, 1984, strangulation death of Tonnie Storey, 15, of Cincinnati. The 2nd was for the July 13, 1984, beating death of Marlene Walters, 44, of suburban Cincinnati. An execution date for Coleman could depend on the resolution of conflicting rulings by the same federal court.

A 3-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Coleman's death sentence in the Storey case after concluding that Coleman's attorneys didn't adequately represent him in a 1985 trial. The court, however, upheld Coleman's conviction. A different 3-judge panel of the court had already upheld Coleman's death sentence for Walters' death.

Coleman's attorneys have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Walters' ruling. They argue that since the same 2 attorneys represented Coleman in both Ohio cases, it is inconsistent that his sentence be overturned in the Storey case and upheld in the Walters' case. "It would be very unfair to execute someone when 2 different panels of the same court reach conflicting results," Baich said. "We hope the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve this conflict."

Senate President Richard Finan, who helped write the law reinstating Ohio's death penalty, on Wednesday criticized the long appeals process for death row inmates. "Deterrence is a problem when the person sits there for 19 years, and they write 2 books, they find God and they join the junior chamber of commerce and then all of a sudden they're a good person," Finan said.

(source: Associated Press)

State v. Coleman, 1987 WL 18124 (Ohio App. 1987). (Direct Appeal)

On the morning of July 11, 1984, Tonnie Storey, a fifteen-year-old black female, left her home in Cincinnati to attend a computer class at a junior high school.

Eight days later, Storey's partially decomposed body was discovered in an abandoned building; it was determined that she had been the victim of a homicide.

The defendant-appellant, Alton Coleman, and a female companion, Deborah Denise Brown, were subsequently indicted for the homicide in a true bill containing two counts of aggravated murder and one count of aggravated robbery. The two counts of aggravated murder contained death-penalty specifications under R.C. 2929.04

Appellant Coleman was tried separately before a jury and found guilty of purposely, and with prior calculation and design, causing the death of Tonnie Storey as part of a course of conduct involving the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill two or more persons (first count with first specification).

The jury also returned a verdict finding him guilty under R.C. 2903.02 of purposely causing Storey's death, a lesser included offense of the aggravated murder charged in the indictment's second count. Coleman was acquitted on the remaining charge of aggravated robbery.

In the sentencing phase of the trial, the jurors determined that the aggravating circumstance found to exist in the case outweighed the mitigating factors, and they accordingly recommended that Coleman receive the death penalty.

The trial judge, after independently weighing the evidence, accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Coleman to death for the aggravated murder of Storey.

No further sentence was imposed in connection with the guilty verdict separately returned for the lesser included offense of murder. The record reveals the following pertinent chronology of events:

1. January 7, 1985: Coleman was returned to Hamilton County to stand trial on two separate capital indictments (the one here at issue and another involving the murder of one Marlene Walters, see State v. Coleman [Dec. 10, 1986], Hamilton App. No. C-850340, (unreported). At that time, he was serving a term of imprisonment on federal kidnapping charges.

2. February 13, 1985: Trial in the present case was set for April 29, 1985.

3. March 28, 1985: Coleman was held in contempt for refusing to provide handwriting samples.

4. April 15, 1985: Coleman's trial for the Walters murder began.

5. April 23, 1985: The present case was continued until June 17, 1985, because the other trial for the Walters murder was in progress and Coleman would not be available on the scheduled trial date of April 29, 1985.

6. May 6, 1985: Coleman was sentenced to death at the conclusion of the trial for the Walters murder.

7. May 20, 1985: Trial began in the present case.

State v. Coleman, 1986 WL 14070 (Ohio App. 1986). (Direct Appeal-Walters)

The defendant-appellant, Alton Coleman, was found guilty, after a jury trial, of the July 13, 1984 aggravated murder of Marlene Walters. The trial court imposed a sentence of capital punishment and this appeal as of right ensued.

The appellant and his companion, Debra Brown, arrived at the home of Harry Walters and Marlene Walters on July 13, 1984, ostensibly to discuss the purchase of a camper that Mr. and Mrs. Walters had for sale. The result of this encounter was discovered by the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Walters when she returned from work about 4:00 p.m. on the same day.

She found the body of her mother, Marlene Walters, in the basement. Her mother was dead and her body displayed multiple severe head injuries. Harry Walters was also found, alive, in the basement with less severe head injuries.

An automobile belonging to Mr. Walters had been stolen and was recovered in Lexington, Kentucky on July 15, 1984. The record contains further evidence of the movements of the appellant and Brown until they were apprehended in Evanston, Illinois. They were returned, subsequently, to Hamilton County, Ohio for trial.

Each of the two counts of aggravated murder was accompanied by three specifications of aggravating circumstances. The first specification to the first count charged that the aggravated murder was committed while the appellant was committing or attempting to commit aggravated burglary and that appellant was the principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder or committed the aggravated murder with prior calculation and design as specified in R.C. 2929.04(A)(7)

The first specification to the second count charged the appellant in similar fashion, substituting aggravated robbery for aggravated burglary. The jury returned verdicts finding the appellant guilty of the first specification to each count. The jury returned not guilty verdicts on the second specification to each count of aggravated murder.

The second specification charged the aggravating circumstance of committing the aggravated murder for the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension and punishment for another offense (aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, respectively) as specified in R.C. 2929.04(A)(3)

The third specification to each count of aggravated murder charged the appellant with committing aggravated murder as a part of a course of conduct involving the purposeful attempt by the appellant to kill two or more persons as specified in R.C. 2929.04(A)(5) The jury found the appellant guilty of the third specification to each count of aggravated murder.

On direct examination, the co-defendant, Debra Brown, recanted her testimony given during the first phase of the trial. In the second phase of the trial, she testified that she committed the murder of Marlene Walters.

The record discloses that for approximately two weeks prior to the homicide on review, appellant and his co-defendant traveled in Michigan and Ohio without visible means of support other than robberies perpetrated against older couples in their respective homes.

Their journey led them to Norwood, Ohio on July 13, 1984, where they approached Harry and Marlene Walters ostensibly to discuss the purchase of a camper.

By this ruse, appellant and his co-defendant were admitted to the Walters residence where Harry Walters was severely beaten about his head and left to die beside the body of his wife who had been beaten to death.

The appellant and his co-defendant removed some personal property from the residence, stole the automobile of Harry Walters and left Hamilton County. Thereafter they committed additional crimes in Kentucky and Dayton, Ohio. They were finally arrested in Illinois on July 20, 1984.

The appellant used a variety of instruments in murdering Marlene Walters and attempting to murder Harry Walters including glass bowls, candlesticks, soft drink bottles, vise-grips, crowbar, electric cord, and handcuffs. The violence of the attacks fractured the skulls of both victims, driving portions of bone into the brain of each victim.

The disarray of the furnishings in the home, the blood at various places and the physical injuries inflicted upon Mr. and Mrs. Walters all constitute irrefutable evidence of the ferocity of the assaults motivated by a purpose to kill the victims.

We find that the evidence in the record before us proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant is guilty of the counts and specification three to counts one and two contained in the indictment and of which he was convicted by the trial jury.

Further, considering the aggravating circumstances of the specifications and weighing them against the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history, character and background of the appellant and all the mitigating factors listed in R.C. 2929.04(B) we conclude that the aggravating circumstances do outweigh the mitigating factors present in this case.

State v. Coleman, 544 N.E.2d 622 (Ohio 1989) (Direct Appeal-Storey).

On July 7, 1984, Alton Coleman (appellant), and Debra D. Brown approached the home of the Reverend and Mrs. Millard Gay of Dayton, Ohio. After conversing with Mr. Gay, they stayed at the Gays' home from July 7 through July 9, 1984.

Appellant and Brown accompanied the Gays to religious services in Lockwood, Ohio, on July 9, 1984. The next day, the Gays drove appellant and Brown to downtown Cincinnati and dropped them off.

On July 11, 1984 at approximately 10:00 a.m., Tonnie Storey, age fifteen, left her home in Cincinnati wearing rusty brown cutoff shorts, a beige sleeveless blouse with yellow rings, blue tassel shoes and a Michael Jackson button. She was next seen at Bloom Junior High School at approximately 11:45 a.m. by a teacher.

Later that same day, between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., a classmate saw Tonnie on the corner of May and Morgan Streets in Cincinnati in the company of a man and a woman. The classmate identified the man as Coleman. When Tonnie had not returned home by 4:30 p.m. that day, her mother called the police and reported her missing.

On July 19, 1984, a body was discovered in an abandoned building on May Street by a real estate agent. A Michael Jackson button and a pair of brown shorts with keys in the pocket were discovered in the area where the body was found.

The keys identified by decedent's father belonged to the Storey residence. The body was badly decomposed and identification was made through fingerprints. The body was identified as that of Tonnie Storey. The cause of death of Tonnie was homicidal asphyxia.

Appellant and Brown were jointly indicted for the murder of Tonnie on October 10, 1984, in a three-count indictment containing specifications. The first specification charged pursuant to R.C. 2929.04(A)(5) was that the aggravated murder was part of a course of conduct involving the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill two or more persons.

The death-penalty specification was dismissed prior to trial. The third specification charged pursuant to R.C. 2929.04(A)(3) was that the offense was committed for the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension, trial, or punishment for another offense.

Appellant was tried separately from co-indictee Brown. The jury found appellant guilty of aggravated murder and guilty of specification No. 1. The mitigation hearing was held one day after the guilt phase was completed, and the jury recommended the penalty of death.

On June 24, 1985, the trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced appellant to death. Appellant appealed to the court of appeals which affirmed the judgment of the trial court. This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

During the summer of 1984 Alton Coleman and Debra Brown embarked upon a course of criminal conduct through several Midwestern states. In May 1984 appellant befriended Juanita Wheat, a black female, who lived in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and was the mother of nine-year-old Vernita.

On May 29, 1984, appellant abducted Vernita to Waukegan, Illinois. Her body was discovered on June 19, 1984 in an abandoned building, four blocks from appellant's grandmother's apartment. The body was badly decomposed and the cause of death was ligature strangulation.

On May 31, 1984, appellant befriended Robert Carpenter in Waukegan, Illinois, and spent the night at his home. The next day he borrowed Carpenter's car to go to the store and never returned.

In June 1984, appellant and Brown appeared in Gary, Indiana, where they encountered two young black girls, Annie Hillard, age nine or ten, and Tamika Turks, age seven. Tamika's partially decomposed body was discovered on June 19, 1984. The cause of death was ligature strangulation. Annie survived.

On June 19, 1984, appellant befriended Donna Williams, a twenty-five-year- old black female, of Gary, Indiana. On July 11, 1984, Williams' badly decomposed body was discovered in Detroit, Michigan, one-quarter to one- half mile from where her car was found. The cause of death was ligature strangulation.

On June 28, 1984, appellant and Brown entered the home of Mr. and Mrs. Palmer Jones of Dearborn Heights, Michigan. Palmer was handcuffed by Coleman and then badly beaten. Mrs. Jones was also attacked. Coleman ripped the Joneses' phone from the wall and stole their money and car.

On July 5, 1984, appellant and Brown came to Toledo, Ohio, where appellant befriended Virginia Temple, an adult black female and the mother of several children. Her eldest child was Rachelle, age nine. Relatives became concerned about the children and upon entering the home found the young children alone and frightened.

Virginia's and Rachelle's bodies were discovered in a crawl space. A bracelet was missing from the home and later was found in Cincinnati under the body of Tonnie Storey. The cause of death of both Virginia and Rachelle was strangulation.

On July 7, 1984, appellant and Brown entered the home of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Duvendack of Toledo. Coleman handcuffed Frank. The Duvendacks were then bound with their own appliance cords and phone cords which had been cut, and money and the Duvendacks' car were stolen.

On July 7, 1984, appellant and Brown appeared at the home of Reverend and Mrs. Millard Gay of Dayton, Ohio. They stayed with them in Dayton and then accompanied them to Lockwood, Ohio, on July 9, to a religious service. On July 10, the Gays dropped off appellant and Brown in downtown Cincinnati.

On July 17, 1984, appellant and Brown reappeared at the Gay home. The Reverend Mr. Gay recognized appellant and he and his wife were accosted with guns. Mr. Gay asked appellant, " * * * why you want to do us like that, like this," and according to Gay, Coleman responded: "I'm not going to kill you. * * * But we generally kills them where we go." Appellant took Mr. Gay's car.

On July 13, 1984, appellant and Brown entered the home of Mr. and Mrs. Harry Walters of Norwood, Ohio. Mrs. Walters was killed and Harry was attacked. Money and the Walterses' car were stolen.

State v. Coleman, 525 N.E.2d 792 (Ohio 1988) (Direct Appeal-Walters).

Alton Coleman and Debra D. Brown bicycled into Norwood, Ohio, on July 13, 1984, at about 9:30 a.m. About three hours later, they drove away in Harry Walters' car, leaving Harry Walters unconscious and Marlene Walters dead. Harry Walters survived. He testified that Coleman and Brown inquired about a camping trailer he had been offering for sale. Upon agreement to sell the trailer, Harry Walters invited Coleman and Brown into his home. He sat on the couch as he and Coleman discussed the trailer title.

Coleman picked up a wooden candlestick and, after admiring it, hit Harry Walters on the back of the head. The force of the blow broke the candlestick and drove an island of bone against Mr. Walters' brain. Mr. Walters remembered little else.

Sheri Walters, Harry and Marlene's daughter, came home from work at about 3:45 p.m. At the bottom of the basement steps, she found her father, barely alive, and her mother, dead. Both had ligatures around their throats and electrical cords tied around their bare feet. Her mother's hands were bound behind her back and her father's hands were handcuffed behind his back. Her mother's head was covered with a bloody sheet.

Expert testimony indicated Marlene Walters had been struck on the head approximately twenty to twenty-five times. Twelve lacerations, some of which were made with a pair of vice grips, covered her face and scalp. The back of her skull was smashed to pieces. Parts of her skull and brain were missing.

The living room hallway, and basement, were splattered with blood. Fragments of a broken soda bottle, bearing Coleman's fingerprints, were found in the living room. Strands of Marlene Walters' hair were found on a blood- stained magazine rack located in the living room.

Bloody footprints, made by two different kinds of shoes, were found in the basement. The family car, a red Plymouth Reliant, was gone. Money, jewelry, and shoes had been stolen. Left behind were two bicycles, clothes and shoes.

Coleman was found guilty of aggravated murder while committing aggravated burglary under R.C. 2903.01 . The jury found Coleman was the principal offender of this offense. He was also found to be a participant in a course of conduct involving the purposeful attempt to kill two or more persons pursuant to R.C. 2929.04(A)(5).

The jury also found Coleman guilty of aggravated murder while committing aggravated robbery under R.C. 2903.01 and found he was the principal offender. They also found, as in the first charge, that Coleman participated in a course of conduct involving the purposeful attempt to kill two or more people.

Finally, the jury found Coleman guilty of attempted aggravated murder, aggravated robbery (theft of a motor vehicle and other personal property, after inflicting serious physical harm upon Harry Walters), and aggravated burglary. The jury concluded that the death penalty was appropriate and the trial judge ultimately agreed.

People v. Coleman, 544 N.E.2d 330 (Ill. 1989) (Direct Appeal).

The defendant, Alton Coleman, was charged by indictment in the circuit court of Lake County for the murder (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 38, pars. 9- 1(a)(2), (a)(3)) and aggravated kidnapping (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 38, par. 10-2(a)(3)) of Vernita Wheat.

A jury found the defendant guilty of each charge. The State requested a hearing to consider whether the death penalty should be imposed. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 38, par. 9-1(d).) The same jury found the defendant eligible for the death penalty and found there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude a sentence of death.

The circuit court sentenced the defendant to death and to a 15-year term of imprisonment on the aggravated kidnapping conviction. The death sentence was stayed (107 Ill.2d R. 609(a)) pending direct appeal to this court (Ill. Const.1970, art. VI, § 4(b); 107 Ill.2d R. 603).

The following evidence was adduced at the guilt phase of the defendant's trial. The partially decomposed body of nine-year-old Vernita Wheat was discovered in an abandoned building in Waukegan, Illinois, on June 19, 1984. Her chest, neck and hands were bound with cable wire.

Dr. Larry Blum, assigned to the case, determined that the cause of death was ligature strangulation. Dr. Blum opined that the death occurred approximately three weeks prior to the discovery of the body.

Dr. Bernard Greenberg, a forensic entomologist, studies the development of the fly larvae found on the victim's body and opined that the body was deposited in the building on either May 29 or May 30.

Juanita Wheat, the victim's mother, testified that at the time of the offense she resided in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with her daughter, Vernita, and her seven- year-old son, Brandon.

At the end of April or beginning of May of 1984, the defendant introduced himself to Juanita as Robert Knight, showed her an identification card bearing that name, and told her he lived two blocks away.

The defendant actually lived in Waukegan. That evening the defendant ate dinner with Juanita at her apartment and played with her children.

Several days later the defendant returned to Juanita's apartment, spent time with Juanita and her children, and met Juanita's cousin, Willie Mae Peebles.

On May 29, 1984, the defendant returned to Juanita's apartment building and without invitation entered the apartment of Juanita's neighbor, Ellen Reeves, whom Juanita was visiting. Juanita introduced the defendant to Reeves.

With Juanita's permission, the defendant then took the children to a carnival, and returned them to Juanita's apartment by 10:15 p.m. Juanita then allowed Vernita to accompany the defendant to his apartment "to pick up a stereo system."

When the defendant had not returned Vernita by 10:45 p.m., Juanita and Reeves began searching for her. Approximately one hour later Juanita telephoned the police.

On the following day, Juanita and Reeves identified the defendant's photograph at the police station. Juanita, Reeves and Peebles identified the defendant in court.

Ernesto Zertuche, a patron of an establishment in Kenosha called the "400 Club," testified that a black man and a black girl entered the establishment at approximately 11:35 p.m. on May 29, 1984, and the man immediately used the telephone.

A few minutes later a cab arrived to pick up the man and girl. Zertuche identified a photograph of Vernita Wheat as the girl he had seen at the 400 Club.

David McIntosh, another patron, corroborated the testimony of Zertuche. McIntosh identified the defendant and identified a photograph of Vernita Wheat as the man and girl he had seen at the 400 Club.

Keith Hach, a cab driver, testified that his cab was dispatched to the 400 Club at 11:35 p.m. on May 29, 1984. Once he arrived, a black man and black girl entered his cab. The man directed Hach to drive them to Zion, Illinois, "to pick up a stereo system."

When they arrived at the designated house, the man tapped Hach on the shoulder and told him to drive them to Waukegan. Hach drove the man and girl to "Slater's Barbecue" in Waukegan.

James Adams, an employee at the Diamond Scrap Yard located next to Slater's Barbecue, testified that he was working during the early morning hours of May 30, 1984.

At approximately 1:30 a.m., he saw a black man and a black girl walking "in the middle of the street as if they had came out of Slater's."

On behalf of the defense, Anna Ross testified that she saw the defendant and Vernita Wheat walking past her house during the afternoon of May 30, 1984. Ross waved to Vernita and Vernita waved back.

Patricia Parks, a friend of the defendant, testified that the defendant came to her residence during the morning of May 31, 1984, and asked her to leave town with him. She declined.

Joseph Thompson, another friend of the defendant, testified that he drove the defendant to a "record shop" in Chicago at approximately noon on May 31, 1984, so that the defendant could obtain false identification cards. Afterwards, Thompson drove the defendant to a train station in Evanston, Illinois.

Terri Coleman, the defendant's sister, testified that the defendant visited with her briefly at her house in Waukegan at approximately 7 p.m. on May 31, 1984. She informed the defendant that the police had asked her about a "girl in Kenosha."

Officer Michael Bettasso testified that he was dispatched to Terri Coleman's house at 7 p.m. on May 31, 1984. He stated that the police had information that a cab had taken the defendant to that location.

When Officer Bettasso arrived, he saw a black man, whom he identified as the defendant, leaving the house.

The defendant saw Officer Bettasso, turned and fled. Officer Bettasso pursued the defendant, but was unable to apprehend him.

On June 19, 1984, Andrew Greenwood and Murry Smith discovered Vernita Wheat's body in the bathroom of an abandoned building in Waukegan. The abandoned building was located two blocks from Slater's Barbecue.

Greenwood telephoned the police. After an investigation of the premises, two fingerprints were discovered on the door of the bathroom: the first was unidentified and the second was identified as the defendant's.

The defendant was arrested in Evanston, Illinois, at approximately 10:40 a.m. on July 20, 1984. That afternoon the defendant told the police that he knew Juanita Wheat, but denied that he knew or killed Vernita Wheat.

244 F.3d 533

Alton Coleman, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Betty Mitchell, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

Docket number: 98-3546

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir.

March 26, 2001

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati. Nos. 94-00863, 94-00864, Sandra S. Beckwith, District Judge.

Before: MERRITT, RYAN, and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

RYAN, Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Petitioner Alton Coleman has been convicted of murder in an Ohio state court and has been sentenced to death. He now appeals the district court's order dismissing his habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Coleman raises several assignments of error, the most serious of which are: (1) the district court erred when it held that Coleman had procedurally defaulted on 34 of the 50 claims raised in his habeas petition; (2) his constitutional due process rights were violated because of prosecutorial misconductand the introduction of "other acts" evidence; and (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing because his attorneys failed to fully investigate his background and mental health for purposes of offering evidence in mitigation. For the reasons discussed below, we will affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

A.

On July 13, 1984, Coleman and his girlfriend, Debra D. Brown, arrived via bicycle in Norwood, Ohio, and stopped at the home of Harry and Marlene Walters around 9:30 a.m. After inquiring about a camping trailer the Walterses had for sale, Coleman and Brown were invited into the Walterses' home. Once inside, Coleman picked up a wooden candlestick and began striking Mr. Walters on the back of the head.

When the Walterses' daughter, Sheri, arrived home from work around 3:45 p.m. the same day, she found the house splattered with blood and her parents' motionless bodies lying at the bottom of the basement steps. Mr. Walters, barely breathing, had his hands handcuffed behind his back and his feet tied together with electrical cords. Mrs. Walters, already dead, had a bloody sheet covering her head. Her hands were bound behind her back and her feet were tied together with electrical cords. At trial, expert testimony indicated that Mrs. Walters had been struck on the head approximately 25 times. Twelve lacerations, several made with a pair of vise grips, covered her face and scalp. The back of her skull was smashed to pieces, and parts of both her skull and brain were missing. Mr. Walters survived the beating with some degree of brain damage.

Money, jewelry, shoes, and the family car had been stolen. Two bicycles were found abandoned in the Walterses' yard, and Coleman's fingerprints were found on a broken soda bottle in the living room.

Coleman and Brown have been implicated in several murders, rapes, kidnappings, and armed robberies that were committed in several Midwestern states during the summer of 1984.

B.

A Hamilton County grand jury indicted Coleman on the following five counts: (1) aggravated murder while committing aggravated burglary; (2) aggravated murder while committing aggravated robbery; (3) attempted aggravated murder; (4) aggravated robbery; and (5) aggravated burglary. Following trial, an Ohio jury returned a verdict of guilty on all charges and Coleman was sentenced to death for the aggravated murder of Mrs. Walters. Coleman's judgment of conviction and his death sentence were affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals, State v. Coleman, Nos. C-850340, B-842559A, 1986 WL 14070 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 10, 1986), and the Ohio Supreme Court, State v. Coleman, 525 N.E.2d 792 (Ohio 1988). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, Coleman v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 900 (1988).

Coleman then petitioned the trial court for post-conviction relief pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.21. The trial court, without conducting an evidentiary hearing, adopted the state's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied relief. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, State v. Coleman, No. C-900811, 1993 WL 74756 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 17, 1993), and the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Coleman's appeal, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction, State v. Coleman, 619 N.E.2d 419 (Ohio 1993).

On July 9, 1993, Coleman filed an Application for Delayed Reconsideration in the Ohio Court of Appeals alleging that his counsel on direct appeal had been constitutionally ineffective. The Court of Appeals denied the application, ruling that Coleman had failed to show good cause for filing itmore than 90 days after the court's judgment. See Ohio App. R. 26(B)(2)(b). On October 7, 1994, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, denied Coleman's request for reconsideration, and revoked the stay of execution on Coleman's death sentence.

On January 6, 1995, Coleman filed his habeas corpus petition in federal court. He brought 50 assignments of error. The district court concluded that 34 of the assignments of error were procedurally barred because Coleman had failed to raise them on direct appeal in state court. The remaining assignments of error were found to be without merit.

On February 13, 1995, the district court granted Coleman's motion to consolidate three habeas cases: the sentence of death for the murder of Mrs. Walters; a second sentence of death from his conviction for another murder in Ohio; and a conviction for interstate kidnapping. On February 13, 1998, the district court denied, inter alia, Coleman's habeas corpuspetition pertaining to the murder of Mrs. Walters.

Coleman timely appealed the district court's judgment in the consolidated case, and this court then severed Coleman's appeal. Consequently, this appeal pertains only to the denial of habeas corpus relief in the capital case involving the death of Mrs. Walters.

II.

Because Coleman's habeas petition was filed on January 6, 1995, before the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), became effective on April 24, 1996, the pre-AEDPA standard of review applies. See 28 U.S.C. 2254 (1996). This court must review the district court's legal conclusions denovo and its findings of fact for clear error. Rickman v. Bell, 131 F.3d 1150, 1153 (6th Cir. 1997). And we must defer to state court factual findings pertaining to primary or historical facts, which are presumed correct and are rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence. See id. State court determinations of law and mixed questions of law and fact should be reviewed de novo. Id.

III.

The district court concluded that Coleman had procedurally defaulted on 34 of the 50 claims raised in his habeaspetition because of failure to comply with Ohio's res judicata doctrine established in State v. Perry, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 1967). In Perry, the Ohio Supreme Court held:

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars the convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that judgment.

Id. at 108 (emphasis added).

Coleman contends that even if his claims are procedurally defaulted for not having been raised on direct appeal, his default is "excused" because his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to properly raise the issues in that appeal. Coleman cannot obtain federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 unless he has completely exhausted his available state court remedies by presenting his claims to the state's highest court. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 , 731 (1991). And, he cannot circumvent the exhaustion requirement by failing to comply with state procedural rules. See id.at 731-32; Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269, 274 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 623 (2000).

When determining whether a state petitioner's claim is barred from habeas review based on procedural default, this court must look to the following fourfactors. First, the court must determine that there is an applicable state procedural rule with which the petitioner failed to comply. Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135, 138 (6th Cir. 1986). Second, the court must determine that the state rule is one that is "firmly established and regularly followed." Jones v. Toombs, 125 F.3d 945, 946 (6th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Third, the court must determine that the state procedural rule is an "adequate and independent" state ground on which the state may rely to foreclose review of the federal constitutional claim. Maupin, 785 F.2d at 138. If all three of these factors are met, the petitioner must then show there was "cause" for the default and "prejudice" resulting therefrom, or that a "miscarriage of justice" would result if the procedural default were enforced. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 84-87, 90-91 (1977). A state procedural bar will be held to bar federal habeas review only when the last reasoned decision of the state court concluded that the claims were barred by a state procedural rule. See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 (1989); Couch v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 94, 96 (6th Cir. 1991).

In Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 120 S. Ct. 1587 (2000), the United States Supreme Court held that "an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim asserted as cause for the procedural default of another claim can itself be procedurally defaulted." Id. at 1592. In this case, the petitioner has procedurally defaulted on his claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective because, as we will explain, he failed to bring the claim in a timely manner as required by Ohio law, which is itself a procedural bar. Therefore, in order for Coleman to use his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim as "cause" to excuse his other procedurally defaulted claims, he must first meet the cause and prejudice standard for the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim itself. We conclude that Coleman has not carried this burden.

According to Coleman, the district court erred in declining to consider his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim on the ground that the claim was procedurally barred. As we have said, the Ohio Court of Appeals denied Coleman's effort to have his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim considered in his application for delayed reconsideration of his direct appeal. The Court of Appeals ruled that the application was untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the original Court of Appeals decision, as required by Ohio App. R. 26(B). Coleman alleges that he asserted the claim in his petition for post-conviction relief in the state trial court in 1990, rather than in an application to reconsider his direct appeal, because there was no regularly followed procedure in the Ohio courts for raising such claims.

In February 1992, after conclusion of his direct appeals to the Ohio Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court, and during the pendency of Coleman's appeal of the denial of his post-conviction petition, the Ohio Supreme Court decidedState v. Murnahan, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio 1992). The Murnahan court held that ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims should be raised in a delayed motion for reconsideration before the Ohio Court of Appeals and not in a petition for post-conviction relief.

Coleman waited 16 months after Murnahan was decided before filing his delayed motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals on July 9, 1993, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the application because it was more than 90 days after the court's 1986 decision and Coleman had not shown good cause for the delay, as required by Ohio App. R. 26(B).

On July 1, 1993, Ohio App. R. 26(B) was amended to provide, in pertinent part:

(B)Application for reopening(1)A defendant in a criminal case may apply for reopening of the appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, based on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. An application for reopening shall be filed in the court of appeals where the appeal was decided within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time.

(2)An application for reopening shall contain all of the following:

. . . . (b)A showing of good cause for untimely filing if the application is filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment.

Ohio App. R. 26(B).

While Coleman's application was filed prior to the amendment's effective date, the amendment governs further proceedings in pending actions, unless it is shown that its application would work an injustice. Coleman has not made this showing.

Coleman argues that the 90-day filing period that he missed should have been "tolled" due to the fact that the Ohio Court of Appeals had not yet ruled on his petition for post-conviction relief, which included a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Although he is not entirely clear about it, Coleman seems to be arguing there was not a firmly established and regularly followed procedural rule for raising ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in 1986 when his appeal was decided in the Ohio Court of Appeals, and therefore, no "adequate and independent" state ground existed to foreclose review of the federal constitutional claim. We do not find Coleman's argument persuasive.

Before the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Murnahan, it was well established in the Ohio First Appellate District, the appellate district in which Coleman's appeal was heard, that claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were to be raised in a delayed motion for reconsideration and were not cognizable in state post-conviction proceedings. See State v. Rone, Nos. C-820322, B-784088, 1983 WL 8877 (Ohio Ct. App. June 1, 1983) (unpublished disposition). Even assuming Coleman was confused by the proper forum in which to initially bring his claim, he does not explain why he did not ask the court to remove his ineffective appellate counsel claim from his post-conviction petition without prejudice in order to raise it in a timely manner in a Murnahan motion or why he waited 16 months after Murnahan was decided to raise the claim.

When a habeas petitioner has failed to show cause for not asserting his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim properly in the Ohio courts, a federal court may not reach the merits of the habeas claim unless the petitioner can show that refusal to consider his claim would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The fundamental miscarriage of justice exception requires a showing that "in light of the new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 (1995). Coleman has not made this showing and does not claim to have done so.

Even if Coleman could offer an appropriate excuse for failing to bring his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim in a proper and timely manner, the claim is meritless. The Edwards Court recently reemphasized that "[n]ot just any deficiency in counsel's performance" is sufficient to excuse procedural default; "the assistance must have been so ineffective as to violate the Federal Constitution." Edwards, 120 S. Ct. at 1591. The proper ineffective assistance of counsel standard was articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984):

First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient.This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.

Id. at 687.

On direct appeal to the Ohio First Appellate District, Coleman's appellate counsel raised 15 assignments of error and on direct appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, he asserted 11 assignments of error. After a careful review of the record, we are in agreement with the district court that Coleman's appellate counsel was not deficient for refusing to raise approximately 60 additional claims as Coleman suggests. Coleman does not have a constitutional right to have his counsel press nonfrivolous points if counsel decides as a matter of professional judgment not to press those points. See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 750-51 (1983).

In conclusion, because Coleman's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is itself procedurally defaulted and he has not shown "cause and prejudice" for that default, Coleman's ineffective assistance claim cannot serve as "cause" to excuse his 34 procedurally defaulted claims.

IV.

Coleman next claims that his due process rights were violated due to misconduct by the prosecutor.

A.

Specifically, Coleman argues that the prosecution failed to disclose the existence of the following: (1) an interview conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on July 20, 1984; (2) items seized by the FBI from Coleman's grandmother's home; (3) the identity of Linnroy Bottoson, who allegedly knew of Coleman's whereabouts; (4)Coleman's alleged efforts to surrender; (5) the prosecution's intention to persuade Debra Brown to cooperate with them; (6) any exculpatory evidence concerning or relating to Coleman; (7) psychological, psychiatric, and/or medical profiles, reports, evaluations, and summaries concerning Coleman and/or Brown; (8) background files, reports, information, and summaries concerning Coleman and/or members of his family; (9) background information regarding Coleman; and (10) any mitigating evidence concerning Coleman. We agree with the district court that Coleman procedurally defaulted on any claim related to the seventh item because he failed to raise it on direct appeal, and the state court did not consider it when ruling on Coleman's post-conviction petition.

In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Id. at 87. "[T]here is never a real 'Brady violation' unless the nondisclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict." Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999). Furthermore, there is no Brady violation if the defendant knew or should have known the essential facts necessary to obtain the information in question. See Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 842 (1999).

Without deciding that the items described by Coleman were withheld from him as he alleges, we are satisfied that even if they had been supplied to him, theverdict would have been the same because the quantity and quality of the evidence introduced to prove Coleman's guilt was overwhelming. Consequently, Coleman is unable to show that he was "prejudiced" by not having the information, and there is no Brady violation.

B.

Coleman also claims that he was denied due process of law because the state introduced evidence of "other acts," including murder, for which he was not on trial.

"Other acts" evidence may be introduced in certain situations pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2945.59 and Ohio Evid. R. 404(B). Section 2945.59 provides:

In any criminal case in which the defendant's motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant's scheme, plan, or system in doing an act is material, any acts of the defendant which tend to show his motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant's scheme, plan, or system in doing the act in question may be proved, whether they are contemporaneous with or prior or subsequent thereto, notwithstanding that such proof may show or tend to show the commission of another crime by the defendant.

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2945.59.

And, Ohio Evid. R. 404(B) specifies:

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

Ohio Evid. R. 404(B).

Coleman contends that the "other acts" evidence introduced at trial linking him to other murder cases violated his right to due process and a fair trial because the evidence was dissimilar to the crime involving Mrs. Walters and irrelevant to the issues of scheme, motive, intent, system, or absence of mistake or accident.

The respondent answers that the "other acts" evidence was admissible because of its similarity to the case involving Mrs. Walters since it shows that Coleman was involved in other cases involving: (1) elderly couples; (2) use of deception to enter the victim's home; (3) use of handcuffs; (4) use of electrical cords to tie the victim's hands and feet; (5) the incapacitation of the victim's telephone; (6) the theft of the victim's motor vehicle; and (7) a conspiracy with Debra Brown. Although the respondent's argument is not entirely clear, we take it to be that the "other acts" evidence was introduced to show that Mrs. Walters's killer used the same modus operandi that Coleman used in the other killings--his "signature," so to speak--and therefore, that the "other acts" evidence was admissible as tending to prove Coleman's identity as the killer in this case. This is, of course, a familiar justification for the introduction of "other acts" evidence pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2945.59 and Ohio Evid. R. 404(B).

Because this is an appeal from a habeas corpus decision and not an appeal of Coleman's state conviction, we do not pass upon "errors in the application of state law, especially rulings regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence." Cooper v. Sowders, 837 F.2d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1998). A state court evidentiary ruling will be reviewed by a federal habeas court only if it were so fundamentally unfair as to violate the petitioner's due process rights. See Seymour v. Walker, 224 F.3d 542, 552 (6th Cir. 2000).

The trial court's explanation for the admission of the "other acts" evidence included:

In many of these other offenses, the evidence showed that the defendant used the same method of operation;that he would handcuff his victims and the majority of his assaults on their persons would occur after they were bound and defenseless. It should be noted that all of the victims of other crimes by the defendant who testified in this trial were elderly people, many of them frail, and most all of them incapable of defending themselves against the defendant's attack and most certainly when they were at the disadvantage of having their hands bound with handcuffs, electrical cord or similar ligatures.

We agree with the trial court that the "other acts" evidence was relevant because it showed that the methodology the killer used in Mrs. Walters's death closely resembled that used in other crimes committed by Coleman and thus tended to show that Coleman was Mrs. Walters's killer. Accordingly, the admission of the evidence was not fundamentally unfair and did not violate Coleman's due process rights.

V.

Coleman alleges that the district court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing to reexamine the factual issues resolved by the state courts because he was never afforded the opportunity to develop and litigate the factual bases for his federal constitutional claims. In a habeas proceeding, state court findings of fact enjoy a presumption of correctness. SeeRickman, 131 F.3d at 1153. In order for Coleman to prevail on this claim, he must rebut this presumption of correctness with clear and convincing evidence. See id. The record reveals that Coleman was given the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his claims in the Ohio courts and failed to do so. Because Coleman has done nothing to rebut the presumption of correctness given to the factual issues resolved by the state court, his due process rights have not been violated by the denial of an evidentiary hearing in the federal habeas court.

VI.

Coleman raises a number of challenges to Ohio's capital punishment scheme both on its face and as applied to his case. The district court rejected each of Coleman's claims. We agree that the claims relating to Ohio's capital punishment scheme are either procedurally defaulted or are lacking in merit, substantially for the reasons given in the district court opinion.

VII.

Coleman also contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during sentencing as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment because his attorneys had a duty to investigate all possible mitigating factors, including those relating to Coleman's mental health background, and counsel breached this duty by failing to conduct a complete, independent investigation. We are not entirely convinced that Coleman properly raised this claim on direct appeal; indeed, we are inclined to think the claim was procedurally defaulted. However, the respondent stipulated that Coleman "may be deemed to have fairly presented [this] issue in state court," so we will address the merits of the claim.

Specifically, Coleman alleges four errors committed by his counsel at sentencing: (1) failure to demand a hearing and determination concerning both his competency to waive presentation of mitigation evidence and his refusal to cooperate with trial counsel in providing information for an appropriate investigation of mitigating factors; (2) failure to obtain the necessary reports and evaluations from the appropriate experts for use as evidence at the mitigation phase of the proceedings; (3) failure to raise the issue of the constitutional impropriety of Coleman effectively waiving the presentation of mitigation evidence at the sentencing phase of the proceedings; and (4) failure to request the appointment of an investigator, mitigation specialist, and/or psychologist to assist inthe investigation, preparation, and presentation of mitigating evidence.

To repeat, the Strickland Court articulated the following test for determining the effectiveness of counsel: First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.

When elaborating on the "prejudice" prong of this test, the Strickland Court stated:

It is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding. Virtually every act or omission of counsel would meet that test, and not every error that conceivably could have influenced the outcome undermines the reliability of the result of the proceeding. . . .

[T]he appropriate test for prejudice finds its roots in the test for materiality of exculpatory information not disclosed to the defense by the prosecution, and in the test for materiality of testimony made unavailable to the defense by Government deportation of a witness. The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Id. at 693-94 (citations omitted).

In this case, counsel proceeded with a so-called "residual doubt theory" because Coleman instructed him to do so. Residual doubt has been described as a theory that creates "a lingering uncertainty about facts, a state of mind that exists somewhere between 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'absolute certainty.'" Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 188 (1988) (O'Connor, J., concurring). In State v. McGuire, 686 N.E.2d 1112 (Ohio 1997), the Ohio Supreme Court explained:

Residual or lingering doubt as to the defendant's guilt or innocence is not a factor relevant to the imposition of the death sentence because it has nothing to do with the nature and circumstances of the offense or the history, character, and background of the offender....

Our system requires that the prosecution prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is illogical to find that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, yet then doubt the certainty of the guilty verdict by recommending mercy in case a mistake has occurred. Residual doubt casts a shadow over the reliability and credibility of our legal system in that it allows the jury to second-guess its verdict of guilt in the separate penalty phase of a murder trial. . . .

Residual doubt is not an acceptable mitigating factor under R.C. 2929.04(B), since it is irrelevant to the issue of whether the defendant should be sentenced to death.

Id. at 1123 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

We recognized in Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F.3d 408 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 946 (1999):

Under the Ohio statute, a capital defendant found guilty of a death specification has to present some mitigating evidence in order to avoid the death penalty. If a jury has nothing to weigh against the aggravating circumstance, it almost certainly must find that the aggravating circumstance outweighs the (nonexistent)mitigating circumstances, and recommend death.

Id. at 426.

And, the Mapes court also stated that "when a client faces the prospect of being put to death unless counsel obtains and presents something in mitigation, minimal standards require some investigation." Id. Recently, in Carter v. Bell, 218 F.3d 581, 600 (6th Cir. 2000), and Skaggs v. Parker, 235 F.3d 261, 269, 271 (6th Cir. 2000), this court has held that failure to investigate possible mitigating factors and failure to present mitigating evidence at sentencing can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

But, this case is distinguishable from Mapes, Carter, and Skaggs because after the various options for proceeding in the sentencing phase of the case were explained to him, Coleman directed his counsel to proceed with the residual doubt theory, which did not include the introduction of mitigating evidence relating to Coleman's past mental history. Coleman now argues that his counsel was ineffective for following his instructions because counsel should have realized that he lacked the competence needed to choose an appropriate sentencing strategy.

It is well established that a criminal defendant may not be tried unless he is competent. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396 (1993). To be competent for trial, a defendant must have "sufficient ability to consult with his lawyers and a reasonable degree of rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him." United States v. Ford, 184 F.3d 566, 580 (6th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1161 (2000). Godinez clarified that the level of competence needed to waive counsel is the same as that needed to stand trial. See Godinez, 509 U.S. at 399.

We believe that the Godinez standard should also apply here to determine whether Coleman was competent enough to instruct his counsel as to the appropriate strategy to pursue at sentencing. As the district court recognized, "Coleman acted as co-counsel to the extent of addressing the jury, examining at least one witness, and participating in side-bench conferences between counsel and the judge, as well as presenting his own motions." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Nothing in the trial record that memorializes Coleman's extensive participation in the trial suggests that he lacked a "rational and factual understanding" of the proceedings against him and the potential impact of utilizing a residual doubt theory at sentencing.

While recent decisions from this court have emphasized that failure to present mitigating evidence at sentencing may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, counsel may nevertheless make a reasonable decision that investigation is not necessary. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. Indeed, the Strickland Court noted that "[t]he reasonableness of counsel's actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant's own statements or actions. Counsel's actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on information supplied by the defendant." Id. Coleman admits that he did not cooperate with counsel regarding the investigation and identification of mitigating evidence; imposed restrictions upon counsel; and refused to submit to further psychological or psychiatric testing. After presenting Coleman with his options, counsel proceeded with the residual doubt theory only at Coleman's direction. Coleman was competent to stand trial and competent to assist his lawyer with strategic choices. He repeatedly advised his lawyer to proceed with the residual doubt theory and not to investigate possible mitigating factors. An attorney's conduct is not deficient simply for following his client's instructions.See Jones, 463 U.S. at 751-52. The petitioner was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at sentencing under the Strickland standard.

VIII.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

[Cite as In re Coleman, 95 Ohio St.3d 284, 2002-Ohio-1804.]

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 2002-0614

IN RE COLEMAN.

Submitted April 17, 2002 -- Decided April 19, 2002.

Habeas corpus -- Relief denied when adequate remedy existed on direct appeal -- Claim not raised in direct appeal -- Petition denied.

IN HABEAS CORPUS.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, Alton Coleman, is scheduled to be executed on April 26, 2002, for the aggravated murder of Marlene Walters. He was convicted of this offense in 1985. We affirmed his conviction and death sentence in State v. Coleman (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 286, 525 N.E.2d 792. Coleman has also completed the state postconviction review process. See State v. Coleman (Mar. 17, 1993), Hamilton App. No. C-900811, 1993 WL 74756, jurisdictional motion overruled (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 1450, 619 N.E.2d 419. In State v. Coleman (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 1407, 637 N.E.2d 5, we affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals rejecting Coleman's motion to reinstate his direct appeal. Subsequently, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied Coleman federal habeas corpus relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that judgment. Coleman v. Mitchell (C.A.6, 2001), 244 F.3d 533, certiorari denied (2001), __ U.S. __, 122 S.Ct. 405, 151 L.Ed.2d 307.

Coleman has now filed a petition in habeas corpus, invoking the original jurisdiction of this court under Section 2(B)(1)(c), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.

Accompanying his petition is a motion for an alternative writ of habeas corpus, requesting a stay of execution.

- 1 -

SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING

According to the petition, the state improperly removed 9 of 12 black prospective jurors by means of peremptory challenges at Coleman's trial in 1985.

Coleman objected, but the prosecutor declined to explain why he had challenged the jurors in question, and the trial court did not require the prosecutor to offer any explanation. Citing Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, Coleman contends that we should determine whether there was purposeful discrimination in the jury selection.

Coleman's petition is insufficient on its face to warrant habeas relief. "[H]abeas corpus, like other extraordinary writ actions, is not available when there is an adequate remedy at law." Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 380, 383, 667 N.E.2d 1194. See, also, State ex rel. Fryerson v. Tate (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 481, 485, 705 N.E.2d 353; State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 593, 635 N.E.2d 26. Coleman had a fully adequate remedy at law: he could have raised this issue on direct appeal. He knew that the claim existed, for he had raised it in the trial court. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Batson v. Kentucky on April 30, 1986, over seven months before the Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District issued its decision affirming his conviction.

Yet, as Coleman concedes, he did not raise this claim on direct appeal.

A litigant may not use habeas corpus as a substitute for appeal. See, e.g., Ex parte Womack (1960), 171 Ohio St. 392, 14 O.O.2d 150, 171 N.E.2d 514; In re Piazza (1966), 7 Ohio St.2d 102, 36 O.O.2d 84, 218 N.E.2d 459; Bellman v. Jago (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 55, 526 N.E.2d 308; Ellis v. McMackin (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 161, 602 N.E.2d 611.

Because Coleman had an adequate remedy at law by way of direct appeal, his claim is not cognizable in habeas corpus. Accordingly, Coleman's petition must be denied. Moreover, since Coleman's claim is at odds with settled habeas law, it merits neither a stay of execution nor an alternative writ. We therefore deny the motion for an alternative writ.

- 2 -

SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING Writ denied; motion denied.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.




debra-brown.jpg


Classification: Serial killer
Characteristics: Kidnappings - Rapes - Armed robberies - Partner-in-crime of Alton Coleman
Number of victims: 8
Date of murders: May-July 1984
Date of arrest: July 20, 1984
Date of birth: November 11, 1962
Victims profile: Vernita Wheat, 9 / Tamika Turks, 7 / Donna Williams, 25 / Virginia Temple and her daughter Rachelle, 9 / Tonnie Storey, 15 / Marlene Walters, 44 / A 77-year-old man
Method of murder: Strangulation
Location: Indiana/Ohio/Illinois, USA
Status: Sentenced to death in Indiana on June 23, 1986




Debra Denise Brown is an African-American serial killer. The girlfriend and killing mate of Alton Coleman during a summer murder rampage across four states in 1984, was convicted and sentenced to death in both Ohio and Indiana.

BROWN, DEBRA DENISE # 45

ON DEATH ROW SINCE 06-23-86

DOB: 11-11-1962
DOC#: 864793 Black Female

Lake County Superior Court
Judge Richard W. Maroc

Prosecutor: Thomas W. Vanes, Kathleen O'Halloran

Defense: Daniel L. Toomey, Albert E. Marshall

Date of Murder: June 18, 1984

Victim(s): Tamika Turks B/F/7 (No relationship to Brown)

Method of Murder: ligature strangulation with bedsheet

Summary: 7 year old Tamika and her 9 year old niece, Annie, were walking back from the candy store to their home when they were confronted by Brown and Alton Coleman.

Brown and Coleman convinced them to walk into the woods to play a game. Once there, they removed Tamika's shirt and tore it into small strips which they used to bind and gag the children. When Tamika began to cry, Brown held her nose and mouth while Coleman stomped on her chest.

After carrying Tamika a short distance away, Annie was forced to perform oral sex on both Brown and Coleman, then Coleman raped her. Brown and Coleman then choked her until she was unconscious. When she awoke, they were gone.

Tamika was found dead in the bushes nearby, strangled with an elastic strip of bedsheet. The same fabric was later found in the apartment shared by Coleman and Brown. Annie received cuts so deep that her intestines were protruding into her vagina. Evidence of a remarkably similar murder in Ohio was admitted at trial. These acts proved to be part of a midwestern crime spee by Coleman and Brown that included up to 8 murders, 7 rapes, 3 kidnappings, and 14 armed robberies.

Trial: Information/PC for Murder and DP filed (11-26-84); Motion for Detainer filed (05-17-85); Initial Hearing (12-10-85); Coleman Trial (03-31-86 to 04-12-86); Voir Dire (05-07-86, 05-08-86, 05-09-86, 05-10-86, 05-12-86): Jury Trial (05-12-86, 05-13-86. 05-14-86, 05-15-86, 05-16-86, 05-17-86); Deliberations 3 hours, 37 minutes; Verdict (05-17-86); DP Trial (05-17-86; 05-19-86, 05-20-86, 05-21-86); Deliberations 10 hours, 30 minutes; Verdict (05-22-86); Court Sentencing (06-20-86, 06-23-86).

Conviction: Murder, Attempted Murder (A Felony), Child Molesting (A Felony)

Sentencing: June 23, 1986 (Death Sentence, 40 years, 40 years)

Aggravating Circumstances: b(1) Child Molesting; b (7) 2 prior murder convictions in Ohio

Mitigating Circumstances: borderline mental retardation, substantial domination by Coleman; dependent personality, general lack of aggressiveness, head trauma as a child, 21 years old at time of murder

Direct Appeal:
Brown v. State, 577 N.E.2d 221 (Ind. August 29, 1991)
Conviction Affirmed 4-1 DP Affirmed 4-1
Shepard Opinion; Givan, Dickson, Krahulik concur; Debruler dissents.

Brown v. State, 583 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. 1991) (Rehearing Denied 4-1)
Shepard Opinion; Givan, Dickson, Krahulik concur; Debruler dissents.

Brown v. Indiana, 113 S. Ct. 101 (1992) (Cert. denied)
Brown v. Indiana, 113 S. Ct. 639 (1992) (Rehearing denied)

PCR:
PCR Petition filed 04-08-93. Denied by Special Judge Richard J. Conroy 02-28-96

Brown v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. 1990) (Appeal of PCR denial by Special Judge Richard P. Conroy)
Affirmed 5-0 Sullivan Opinion; Shepard, Dickson, Selby, Boehm concur.
Brown v. Indiana, 119 S. Ct. 1367 (1999) (Cert. denied).

Habeas:
Petition filed and pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio. The State of Indiana's Petition to Transfer was denied. (Brown has been incarcerated in Ohio since her 1991 convictions for Aggravated Murder in Hamilton County. Her Ohio death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 1991 by outgoing Ohio Governor Richard Celeste. On April 26, 2002 Alton Coleman was executed by lethal injection in the state of Ohio.)


Serial Killer - Debra Brown

"I killed the bitch and I don't give a damn. I had fun out of it."

By Charles Montaldo, About.com Guide

In 1984, at age 21, Debra Brown became involved in a master/slave relationship with habitual killer and rapist Alton Coleman and the two went on a massive killing, raping and torture spree across the midwest.

A Change in Plans

At age 21, Debra Brown ended a marriage engagement, left her family and joined Alton Coleman, a sadistic rapist and murderer. During the summer of 1984, in what her attorneys described as a slave-master relationship, the two went on a burglary, rape and killing spree in Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio.

Targeting African-Americans, the couple would often befriend strangers, then assault, sometimes raping and murdering their victims, including children and elderly.

FBI Ten Most Wanted

On July 17, 1984, Alton Coleman became the 388th fugitive listed by the FBI on the Ten Most Wanted list. Three days later the pair were caught and a multi-state coalition of police formed to strategize on how to best prosecute Coleman and Brown. Wanting the pair to face the death penalty, authorities selected Ohio as the first state to prosecute the couple.

No Remorse

In Ohio Coleman and Brown were sentenced to death in each case of the aggravated murders of Marlene Walters and Tonnie Storey. During the sentencing phase of the trial, Brown sent the judge a note which read in part, "I killed the bitch and I don't give a damn. I had fun out of it."

In separate trials in Indiana, both were found guilty of murder, rape and attempted murder and received the death penalty. Coleman also received 100 additional years and Brown received an additional 40-years on charges of kidnapping and child-molesting.

Alton Coleman was executed on April 26, 2002.

Brown's death sentence in Ohio was later commuted to life because of her low IQ scores and non-violent history prior to meeting Coleman and her dependent personality, making her susceptible to Coleman's control.

Currently in The Ohio Reformatory for Women, Brown still faces the death penalty in Indiana.

Alton Coleman (November 6, 1955 – April 26, 2002) was an African-American serial killer. He was executed by the state of Ohio for the murder of 44-year-old Marlene Walters of Norwood, Ohio during a six-state killing spree in 1984.

Overview

Coleman received four death sentences from three Midwest states: Illinois, Ohio (two times), and in Indiana. At the time of his execution he was the only condemned person in the country to have death sentences in three states. His partner-in-crime, Debra Denise Brown, was originally slated to be executed in Ohio, but in 1991 her death sentence was commuted to life in prison by Governor Richard Celeste. She still has a death sentence for the murder the duo committed in Indiana. However, Brown is serving her sentence, without possibility of parole, in the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville, Ohio.

During the summer of 1984, the 28-year-old Coleman and Brown, who was 21 at the time, embarked upon a killing spree through several Midwestern states.

By the time the couple were caught, Coleman was charged or wanted for questioning in assaults on at least 20 people in 13 separate attacks, including seven murders. Almost all of the victims were African-American like Coleman and Brown, but authorities said that was simply because the duo knew they would blend better in the black community, and that there was no racial motive in the murders.

Background of Coleman and Brown

Coleman was a middle-school drop-out who lived with his 73-year-old grandmother in Waukegan, Illinois, and who was well-known to the Illinois law enforcement community. The son of a prostitute who would often have sex with customers in his presence, he was charged with sex crimes six times between 1973 and 1983. Two of the cases were dismissed, and Coleman pleaded guilty to lesser charges in two and was twice acquitted. He claimed to "like it in the butt", and Coleman was scheduled to go on trial in Illinois on charges stemming from the rape of a 14-year-old girl when he fled and began his indiscriminate killing.

One of 11 children, Brown was borderline mentally retarded, suffered head trauma as a child, and was described as a "dependent personality." She was engaged to another man when she met Coleman in 1983, but left her family and moved in with him shortly afterward. Although a willing participant in the assaults and murders, Brown was never violent or in trouble with the law until she met up with Coleman.

In commuting Brown's sentence, Governor Celeste cited her low IQ scores, ranging from 59 to 74, and her "master-slave" relationship with Coleman. Brown was one of eight Ohio death row inmates to have her sentence commuted by Celeste, a staunch opponent of capital punishment, a week before he left office. Four of those whose sentences were commuted were the state's only female death row inmates.

Despite her non-violent history before the spree, Brown remains unrepentant for her acts. During the sentencing phase of her first Ohio trial, Brown sent a note to the judge which read in part: "I killed the bitch and I don't give a damn. I had fun out of it."

Details of the Murders

May 1984

Their crimes began in May 1984 when Coleman befriended Juanita Wheat who lived in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and was the mother of nine-year-old Vernita. On May 29, 1984, Coleman abducted Vernita to Waukegan, Illinois. Her body was discovered on June 19, 1984 in an abandoned building, four blocks from Coleman's grandmother's apartment. The body was badly decomposed and the cause of death was ligature strangulation.

On May 31, 1984, Coleman befriended Robert Carpenter in Waukegan, Illinois, and spent the night at his home. The next day he borrowed Carpenter's car to go to the store and never returned.

June 1984

In June 1984, Coleman and Brown appeared in Gary, Indiana, where they encountered two young girls, 9-year-old Annie and 7 year old Tamika Turks. Tamika's partially decomposed body was discovered on June 19, 1984. The cause of death was ligature strangulation. Annie survived, even though she was sexually assaulted by both Coleman and Brown.

The day Tamika's body was found, Coleman befriended Donna Williams, 25, of Gary, Indiana. On July 11, 1984, Williams' badly decomposed body was discovered in Detroit, about a half-mile from where her car was found. The cause of death was again ligature strangulation.

On June 28, 1984, Coleman and Brown entered the home of Mr. and Mrs. Palmer Jones of Dearborn Heights, Michigan. Palmer was handcuffed by Coleman and then badly beaten. Mrs. Jones was also attacked. Coleman ripped the Jones' phone from the wall and stole their money and car.

July 1984

The day after Independence Day 1984, Coleman and Brown came to Toledo, Ohio, where Coleman befriended Virginia Temple, the mother of several children. Her eldest child was Rachelle, aged nine. When Virginia dropped out of communication with relatives, they became concerned about the children and entering the home found the young children alone and frightened. Virginia's and Rachelle's bodies were discovered in a crawl space. A bracelet was missing from the home and later was found in Cincinnati under the body of Tonnie Storey. The cause of death of both Virginia and Rachelle was strangulation.

The same morning as the murders of Virginia and Rachelle, Coleman and Brown entered the home of Frank and Dorothy Duvendack of Toledo where Coleman proceeded to bind the couple with appliance and phone cords which had been cut. Coleman and Brown took money and the Duvendack's car. One of Mrs. Duvendack's watches was stolen and found later under another victim.

Later that same day, Coleman and Brown appeared at the home of the Reverend and Mrs. Millard Gay of Dayton, Ohio. They stayed with them in Dayton and then accompanied them to Lockwood, Ohio, on July 9, to a religious service. On July 10, the Gays dropped off Coleman and Brown in downtown Cincinnati.

By this time, Coleman had come to the attention of the FBI, which on July 12, 1984, added him to its Ten Most Wanted List as a "special addition". Coleman was just the 10th person since the initiation of the list in 1950 to merit inclusion in such a manner.

Coleman and Brown bicycled into Norwood, Ohio, on July 13 at about 9:30 a.m. Less than three hours later they drove away in Harry Walters' car, leaving Harry Walters unconscious and his wife, Marlene, dead.

Harry Walters survived. He testified that Coleman and Brown inquired about a camper he had put up for sale. Walters sat on the couch as he and Coleman discussed the trailer title. Coleman picked up a wooden candlestick and, after admiring it, hit Harry Walters on the back of the head. The force of the blow broke the candlestick and drove a chunk of bone against Mr. Walters' brain. From that point on, Mr. Walters remembered little else.

Sheri Walters, Harry and Marlene's daughter, came home from work at about 3:45 p.m. and at the bottom of the basement steps, she found her father, barely alive, and her mother, dead. Both had ligatures around their throats and electrical cords tied around their bare feet. Her mother's hands were bound behind her back and her father's hands were handcuffed behind his back. Her mother's head was covered with a bloody sheet.

The coroner indicated Marlene Walters had been struck on the head approximately 20 to 25 times. Twelve lacerations, some of which were made with a pair of vice grips, covered her face and scalp. The back of her skull was smashed to pieces. Parts of her skull and brain were missing.

The living room hallway, and basement, were splattered with blood. Fragments of a broken soda bottle, bearing Coleman's fingerprints, were found in the living room. Strands of Marlene Walters' hair were found on a blood-stained magazine rack located in the living room. Bloody footprints, made by two different kinds of shoes, were found in the basement.

The family car, a red Plymouth Reliant, was gone. Money, jewelry, and shoes had been stolen. Left behind were two bicycles, clothes and shoes.

Two days later, the Plymouth showed up abandoned in Kentucky. The couple then kidnapped Oline Carmichael Jr., a Williamsburg, Kentucky, college professor and drove back to Dayton with their victim locked in the trunk of the car. On July 17, in Dayton, they abandoned this stolen vehicle and Carmichael was rescued by authorities.

Coleman and Brown reappeared at the home of Millard and Kathryn Gay. The Reverend Gay recognized Coleman, who was by this time the subject of a huge nationwide manhunt, and he and his wife were accosted with guns. The Reverend Gay asked Coleman, "Why you want to do us like that, like this," and according to Gay, Coleman responded: "I'm not going to kill you, but we generally kills them where we go." Coleman and Brown took their car and headed back toward Evanston.

On the way back home, they take time to steal another car, killing the 77-year-old man who owned it.

Capture and Trial

On July 17, 1984, Alton Coleman became the 388th fugitive listed by the FBI on the Ten Most Wanted list.

On July 20, 1984 in Evanston, illinois, someone from Coleman’s old neighborhood pulled up to a red light. As he waited for the light to change Coleman and Brown crossed the street in front of his car. He only knew Coleman casually but did recognize him. As Coleman and Brown continued walking west the witness drove north to a gas station where the police were notified.

The information was dispatched and a description of the two was broadcasted. As officers pulled into the area a detective saw Coleman and Brown sitting on probable bleachers in an empty Mason Park; but noted they were wearing different tee shirts. The detective informed the other units just as two sergeants were driving by the park. As they heard the broadcast they turned and saw the two. As Coleman was approached the officers observed Brown walking away from Coleman toward the rear of the park.

The detective joined the two sergeants and Coleman was approached for questioning. As Coleman was being interviewed, two other officers stopped Brown as she tried to exit the park. She was searched and a gun was found in her purse. Coleman had no identification and denied he was Alton Coleman. Both Coleman and Brown were taken into custody without incident and transported to the Evanston Police Department where both were identified by fingerprints.

In the police station Coleman was strip searched and a steak knife was found between two pair of sweat socks he was wearing. When taken into custody they had a shopping bag full of different tee shirts and caps. It was learned as the two walked they would stop every three to four blocks to change shirts and caps.

A week after they were arrested, more than 50 law enforcement officials from Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio met to plan their strategy for prosecuting Coleman and Brown. Michigan, which does not have the death penalty, was quickly ruled out as the place to begin and eventually Ohio was given the first shot at the alleged spree killers.

"We are convinced that prosecution (in Ohio) can most quickly and most likely result in the swiftest imposition of the death penalty against Alton Coleman and Debra Brown", U.S. Attorney Dan K. Webb said.

Appeals and Execution

Ohio was successful in convicting Coleman and Brown on a pair of aggravated murder charges (In May 1985 for the murder of Tonnie Storey, and in June 1985 for the murder of Marlene Walters), as well as a plethora of other violent crimes. They were both sentenced to be executed and the lengthy appeals process began. Coleman's case went to the United States Supreme Court several times between 1985 and 2002, but his numerous arguments that his conviction and death sentence were unconstitutional failed to sway the justices.

By April 2002, time had run out for Coleman. His last-ditch effort to avoid lethal injection was unsuccessful when on April 25, 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected a claim by Coleman's attorneys that the state's plan to accommodate the large number of victims and survivors who wanted to view the execution would turn it into a "spectator sport". There were so many victims and survivors who were allowed to witness the execution that prison officials had been forced to set up a closed-circuit viewing outside the death house.

For his final meal, Coleman ordered a well-done filet mignon smothered with onions, fried chicken breasts, a salad with French dressing, sweet-potato pie topped with whipped cream, french fries, collard greens, onion rings, cornbread, broccoli with melted cheese and biscuits and gravy. He washed it all down with a Cherry Coke.

On April 26, 2002, reciting "The Lord is my shepherd", Alton Coleman died by lethal injection in the death chamber at the state prison in Lucasville, Ohio.

Reginald Wilkinson, director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, said Coleman did not convey remorse for the killings

Court Decisions

Coleman v. Mitchell, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 268 F.3d 417; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 21639; 2001 FED App. 0367P (6th Cir.), October 10, 2001

In re Coleman, Supreme Court of Ohio, 95 Ohio St. 3d 284; 2002 Ohio 1804; 767 N.E.2d 677; 2002 Ohio LEXIS 916, April 19, 2002

State v. Brown, Supreme Court of Ohio, 38 Ohio St. 3d 305; 528 N.E.2d 523; 1988 Ohio LEXIS 289, August 31, 1988

State v. Coleman, Supreme Court of Ohio, 37 Ohio St. 3d 286; 525 N.E.2d 792; 1988 Ohio LEXIS 212, July 6, 1988

State v. Coleman, Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 9048, October 7, 1987


Alton Coleman and Debra Brown


Accompanied by his girlfriend Debra Brown, Alton Coleman went on a six-state raping and killing spree in 1984.

Early Years:

Alton Coleman was born on November 6, 1955 in Waukegan, Illinois, about 35 miles from Chicago. His elderly grandmother and his prostitute mother raised him. Mildly retarded, Coleman was often teased by schoolmates because he sometimes wet his pants. This problem earned him the nickname of "Pissy" among his young peers.

Insatiable Sex Drive:

Coleman dropped out of middle school and became known to local police for commiting petty crimes involving property damage and setting fires. But with every passing year, his crimes grew from petty into more serious charges of sex crimes and rape.

He was also known for having an insatiable and dark sex drive which he sought to satisfy with both men, women and children. By the age of 19, he was charged six times for rape, including that of his niece who later dropped the charges. Remarkably, he would convince jurors that the police had arrested the wrong man or intimidate his accusers into dropping the charges.

The Mayhem Begins:

In 1983, Coleman was charged with rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl who was the daughter of a friend. It was at this point Coleman, along with his girlfriend Debra Brown, fled Illinois and began their brutal rape and murder spree across six mid-western states.

Why Coleman decided to flee this time is unknown since he strongly believed he had voodoo spirits that protected him from the law. But what really protected him was his ability to blend into African American communities, befriend strangers, then turn on them with vicious brutality.

Vernita Wheat:

Juanita Wheat was living in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with her two children, Vernita, age nine, and her seven-year-old son. In early May 1984, Coleman, introducing himself as a nearby neighbor, befriended Wheat and visited her and her children often over a period of a few weeks. On May 29, Wheat gave permission for Vernita to go with Coleman to his apartment to pick up stereo equipment. Coleman and Vernita never returned. On June 19, she was found murdered, her body left in an abandoned building in Waukegan, Illinois. Police also found a fingerprint at the scene which was matched to Coleman.

Tamika and Annie:

Seven-year-old Tamika Turkes and her nine-year-old niece Annie were walking home from a candy store when Brown and Coleman led them into nearby woods. Both children were then bound and gagged with strips of cloth torn from Tamika's shirt. Annoyed by Tamika's crying, Brown held his hand over her nose and mouth while Coleman stomped on her chest, then strangled her to death with elastic from a bedsheet.

Annie was then forced to have sex with both adults. Afterwards they beat and choked her. Miraculously Annie survived, but her grandmother, unable to deal with what happened to the children, later killed herself.

Donna Williams:

On the same day that Tamika and Annie were attacked, Donna Williams, age 25, of Gary, Indiana, came up missing. She only knew Coleman for a short time before she and her car disappeared. On July 11, 1984 Williams was found strangled to death in Detroit. Her car was found parked close to the scene, four blocks from where Coleman's grandmother lived.

Virginia and Rachelle Temple:

On July 5, 1984, Coleman and Brown, now in Toledo, Ohio, gained the trust of Virginia Temple. Temple had several children, the oldest being her daughter, nine-year-old Rachelle. Both Virginia and Rachelle were found strangled to death.

Tonnie Storey:

On July 11, 1984, Tonnie Storey, age 15, from Cincinnati, Ohio, was reported missing after she failed to return home from school. Her body was found eight days later in an abandoned building. She had been strangled to death.

One of Tonnie's classmates testified that she saw Coleman talking to Tonnie the day she disappeared. A fingerprint at the crime scene was also linked to Coleman and a bracelett was found under Tonnie's body, which was later identified as one missing from the Temple home.

Harry and Marlene Walters :

On July 13, 1984, Coleman and Brown bicycled to Norwood, Ohio, but left almost as soon as they arrived. They made a stop before leaving to Harry and Marlene Walter's home under the pretense of being interested in a travel trailer the couple was selling. Once inside the Walter's home, Coleman struck the Walters with a candlestick, bound, then strangled them.

Mrs. Walters was struck up to 25 times and mutilated with a pair of vice grips on her face and scalp. Mr. Walters, survived the attack, but suffered brain damage. Coleman and Brown stole the couple's car which was found two days later in Lexington, Kentucky.

Oline Carmichael Jr.:

In Williamsburg, Kentucky, Coleman and Brown kidnapped college professor Oline Carmichael, Jr., forced him into the trunk of his car, and then drove it to Dayton, Ohio. Authorities found the car and Carmichael still alive in the trunk.

The End of the Killing Spree:

By the time authorities caught up to the deadly pair on July 20, 1984, they had committed at least eight murders, seven rapes, three kidnapping and 14 armed robberies.

After careful consideration by authorities from six states, it was decided that Ohio would be the best place to first prosecute the pair because of its death penalty. Both were found guilty for the murder of Tonnie Storey and Marlene Walters and received the death penalty.

Brown's death sentence was later commuted by Ohio Governor Celeste.

Coleman Fights for His Life:

Coleman's appeal efforts were unsuccessful and on April 25, 2002, while reciting, "The Lord is my shepherd," Coleman was executed by lethal injection.

Killer convicted in 2 states remains behind bars in Ohio

Columbus Dispatch

April 9, 2002

For the past 11 years, Ohio has kept convicted killer Debra Denise Brown behind bars -- at a total cost to taxpayers of $200,000. Brown faces a death sentence in Indiana, while Ohio's case against Brown is dormant, thanks to a commutation by former Gov. Richard F. Celeste. So why is she imprisoned here?

The answer is simple: Indiana hasn't asked for her. "We can't just send her over there,'' said Andrea Dean, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. "A request has to be made by Indiana authorities.''

Brown, 39, the girlfriend and killing mate of Alton Coleman during a summer murder rampage across four states in 1984, was convicted and sentenced to death in both Ohio and Indiana.

However, Celeste -- a death-penalty opponent -- commuted Brown's death sentence to life in prison on Jan. 10, 1991, days before he left office. Celeste said he spared Brown's life because she was retarded, had childlike emotional development and had a "master-slave'' relationship with Coleman.

Brown's death sentence for the murder of 7-year-old Tamika Turks of Gary, Ind., remains in force. She is appealing the Indiana conviction in U.S. District Court in Columbus. Indiana officials are prosecuting the case; Brown's attorneys are court-appointed public defenders from out of state. Indiana officials, including former Gov. Evan Bayh, said immediately after Celeste's commutation that they planned to file a request to extradite Brown.

However, that never happened, perhaps in part because of criticism about the cost of bringing Coleman and Brown to Indiana for trial in 1986 after Ohio already had convicted them of murder.

"Ohio has a lawful right to hold her as well as Indiana,'' said Pam Pattison, spokeswoman for the Indiana Department of Correction. "There has been discussion about bringing her back to Indiana. Ohio kept her,'' Pattison said.

She offered no reason why Indiana has not extradited Brown. Brown is incarcerated at the Ohio Reformatory for Women in Marysville at an annual cost now figured at $22,014.

If Brown were shipped to Indiana, she would be housed at the Indiana Women's Prison in Indianapolis where Indiana taxpayers would pick up the annual cost of $19,374. Coleman's execution has been set for April 26 at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility near Lucasville.

He was sentenced to die for the murder of Marlene Walters of Cincinnati. The case is being appealed. Although Coleman and Brown were close at the time of the murders in 1984, they no longer communicate or have any kind of relationship, one of Coleman's attorneys said.

Alton Coleman & Debra Brown: Odyssey of Mayhem


Deadly Duo

Maybe people shouldn’t be surprised that a boy who had to endure the nickname “Pissy” because of a tendency to wet his pants would grow up to be one of America’s most savage spree killers.

And it certainly didn’t help that Pissy would go to prison on a robbery charge and emerge two years later with a tendency to dress in women’s clothing and a desire for rough sex.

Whatever the reasons, Alton Coleman and his girlfriend Debra Denise Brown will go down in history as a short-lived U.S. version of Great Britain’s multiple sex-slayers Myra Hindley and Ian Brady.

The story of Coleman and Brown begins in the mid-1970s, takes place in five states and involves one of the largest manhunts in recent history.

It is a tale of American criminal justice that stands among the most depraved and cruel incidents of the modern age -- Coleman and Brown demonstrated a lack of respect for human life that shocked even hardened FBI agents and police officers.

In less than two months, they assaulted, raped and murdered their way from Illinois to Michigan and down to Kentucky before authorities were finally able to capture then.

Coleman and Brown are behind bars, each awaiting a date with the executioner, but the evil they wrought upon their innocent victims lives on to this day. The duo have used every avenue of judicial appeal possible and seek mercy from the courts – mercy they rarely showed when they prowled the Midwest.

With every new court ruling or delay, dozens of survivors relive the horror of their encounters with the murderous pair of lovers.

A child victim who managed to avoid death at their hands vows that she will never marry because of her inability to trust and questions whether she is still “pure”. Another survivor battles drug addiction, suicide attempts, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

A mother and father must adjust to the fact that Coleman will never stand trial for their daughter’s murder and they may never find out the circumstances surrounding her slaughter.

Coleman’s family, on the other hand, consider themselves victims – not of their deadly relative, but of a system that they believe persecutes and plans to kill an innocent man. Debra Brown's mother continues to rue the day her daughter met Alton Coleman.

Brown was “a good girl,” unknown to police before she fell under Coleman’s spell, but by the time the pair were caught, it was clear that Brown was just as vicious and murderous as her ex-con boyfriend.

Probably what is most disturbing about Alton Coleman is that he shouldn’t have been on the streets to begin his rape- robbery -murder spree. Over and over Coleman managed to manipulate the judicial system in his favor, beating sexual assault charges on several occasions.

Frustrated prosecutors and lawmen knew they had a monster on their hands, but could only stand by helplessly as jury after jury let the him walk, confident the system had “worked” to free an innocent man.


A Boy Called "Pissy"

Born in Waukegan, an Illinois town about a half-hour’s drive north of Chicago, Alton Coleman endured the taunts of schoolchildren who teased him because he so often wet his pants. They christened the mildly retarded boy “Pissy.”

Family members and law enforcement officials who had dealings with Coleman since his teen years said Alton was slow to show emotion and generally kept to himself.

Clearly alienated from his peers, Coleman had a reputation for his strong sex drive – reportedly he was bisexual and willing to engage in sex any time, any place with anyone. Said one friend of Coleman’s late mother: “He knew he was different… even as a young child. “As he grew up, (Coleman) was deeply into insidious kinds of sexual gratification.”

Coleman first came to the notice of police as a teenager when he was picked up for breaking windows in his Waukegan housing project. He was quickly labeled as a troublemaker, but for the most part, his crimes were of the petty sort.

There was little indication to authorities of the mayhem to come. Interestingly, property damage, often in the form of arson, can be an indicator of serial murder tendencies. That is not to say that every youngster who breaks windows or lights fires is bound to be a serial killer, but only that many multiple murderers committed similar acts as children.

On the way to becoming a serial killer, Coleman gave the law many chances to put him away, but Alton was “smooth as silk,” according to those who fought him in court. Lawmen said Coleman put on a good appearance in court which often convinced jurors that authorities had the wrong man.

Alton, according to friends, also relied upon the supernatural to help him escape justice. He claimed that voodoo made him invulnerable to attack by the law.

“He was good at conning jurors,” Waukegan Police Lt. Marc Hansen told the Detroit Free Press in 1984 when Coleman and Harris were hiding out in Detroit. “He tells a convincing story in court. People are impressed with his testimony. He comes off as a decent person.”

A prosecutor who watched Coleman beat a rape charge agreed. “He knows what kind of case holds up in court and which ones don’t,” said former U.S. attorney Fred Foreman. “He’s been to the penitentiary. He’s a career criminal”

But when the façade wouldn’t work and voodoo god Baron Samedi wasn’t listening, Coleman resorted to more common forms of beating the rap, most notably witness intimidation. “It’s difficult to get people in court to prove these charges because they are sexual assault charges, they involve kids, they involve family that don’t want to see him go to jail,” said Hansen.

In 1983, Coleman’s sister went to authorities and told them her brother tried to rape her eight-year-old daughter. Three weeks later, she went to court to have the charges dropped. “It’s a misunderstanding,” she said. “A lot of families go through that. It doesn’t make any difference now.”

The judge hearing the motion for dismissal was astounded by the 25-year-old woman’s testimony “I think the woman as she stands here today, is terrified of this man,” the judge said. He called her account of the incident “completely implausible.” But in the end, with no victim and no witnesses, the judge had no choice but to free Alton Coleman and dismiss the charges.

Coleman’s rap sheet before his Midwestern spree reads like a one-man sex crime wave. In 1973 he and an accomplice kidnapped, robbed and raped an elderly woman.

She refused to testify about the rape and Coleman served two years on the robbery charge. Three months after his release from Joliet, Coleman was arrested for another rape. He was acquitted but served time for a lesser charge. Four years after that spell in the pen, Coleman was acquitted of rape.

A year later he was arrested for an attempted rape – the charge was dismissed. In July, 1983 he was charged with the rape of his niece. That charge was dismissed. In early 1984 he was indicted for the knifepoint rape and murder of a suburban Chicago girl whose mother was a friend of his.

Coleman learned he was wanted for that crime but disappeared, kicking off his multi-state crime spree with his girlfriend, Debra Brown.


Odyssey of Mayhem

Why Alton and Debra went underground is still a mystery 15 years after they were arrested. Police blamed Coleman’s “intense hatred of blacks,” but longtime friends dismissed that reason as absurd.

The pair’s victims were mostly black because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Coleman stayed in traditionally black neighborhoods because they provided a place for him to hide.

“That sounds so crazy to me,” said one Waukegan public official who knew Coleman since “he was in diapers.” “Why does he victimize blacks? Black neighborhoods are the logical place for him to go. If he went into a white community, they would have found him long ago.”

A friend of the family said Coleman could not deal with his homosexual tendencies. “He used to dress up like a woman a lot. It was well known that he had different habits than a normal male,” the friend said.

Coleman is a classic “disorganized serial killer.” He rarely stalked a particular victim, but instead lashed out at whomever was nearby.

He used whatever tools he had handy to kill or incapacitate his victims and there did not appear to be any ritual to his violence.

What probably set him off was the realization that he no longer had anything to lose. Perhaps the indictment on the aggravated rape and murder charges – which could have brought the death penalty – were enough to finally push him over the brink to whatever madness prompts such violence.

While the pair was on the run, Coleman was indicted on murder charges in Wisconsin and a federal warrant was issued for his capture.

Regardless of the motivation, Coleman and Brown began their spree on June 5, 1984 when the pair rented an apartment in Gary, Ind. Coleman had been wanted by police since May 31 and Debra Brown had been interrogated about his disappearance June 1.

The pair laid low for two weeks until June 18 when two young girls, Tamika Turks and her 9-year-old aunt disappeared on their way to a candy store. Later that day, the 9-year-old was found beaten and raped. Tamika was missing.

A day later, Tamika's badly ravaged body was found in a wooded area in Gary. She had been raped and killed by someone stomping on her chest.

The older girl was forced to watch as the pair killed Tamika – Brown holding Tamika to the ground and covering her nose and mouth and Coleman jumping on her chest and face until her ribs fractured and punctured her vital organs.

The older girl then was forced to have sex with both Brown and Coleman before being beaten about her head. To this day the young woman suffers severe headaches and screaming fits.

“She will get to screaming and crying like someone is hitting her on the back of the head,” said Mary Hilliard, the child’s mother. Her injuries left the family with $15,000 in medical bills, which were substantially, but not completely covered by insurance.

LaVerne Turks, Tamika’s mother, was forced to move to Minneapolis because the memories of Tamika in Gary, Indiana, were too painful. “LaVerne’s gone. Tamika’s missing. My daughter is having these problems. Our family will never be the same,” said Hilliard, who attempted suicide shortly after her granddaughter’s death.

The same day Tamika's body was discovered, Donna Williams, 25, was reported missing by her parents. Her car was stolen, as well.

A week later, Williams’s car was found abandoned in Detroit with a forged identification card featuring Brown’s picture. Residents from the area said the car had been parked in the alley since June 19.

Police in four states were now looking for the pair, working on the assumption that Donna Williams had been murdered, even though her body had not been found.

In the meantime, two days after Williams was reported missing, a Detroit woman was kidnapped by a man and woman whom she later identified as Coleman and Brown. She escaped while driving the pair to Toledo by purposefully ramming her car into oncoming traffic.

Coleman and Brown were able to survive by befriending good Samaritans and later turning on their friends, authorities said. “We’ve come to the conclusion that Coleman and Brown are staying with people they meet,” said FBI Special Agent John Anthony in Detroit. “They spend a day or two with the people, get a little money gambling with them and then assault and rob them and steal their car.”

While in Detroit, Coleman and Brown eluded police while instigating a small, but violent, crime wave. Warrants for their arrest were issued for the kidnapping and robbery of the 28-year-old Detroit woman who managed to escape the killers, a June 28, 1984 robbery and beating of an elderly Dearborn Heights couple and the June 30 robbery of two Detroit men.

By the time the deadly duo left Detroit, police in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan, as well as federal authorities, were on the lookout.

Despite Coleman’s disorganized pattern of murder, there were some similarities among the crimes – in every case the cars stolen by Coleman and Brown were recovered within 12 hours.

When authorities were not able to locate a 1975 Buick stolen by the pair after they beat and robbed a 55-year-old woman and her companion, they had good reason to suspect that Coleman and Brown had left the Motor City.

Sadly, even though the pair had fled to Toledo, the evidence of their crimes continued to surface. In an abandoned house near Wayne State University in Detroit, the badly decomposed body of Donna Williams was found on July 11. It was clear that she hadn’t lived long after she arrived, as a hostage, in Detroit.

There will likely never be any closure – legal or psychological – for the family of Donna Williams. When authorities gathered to determine the best course of action against Coleman and Brown, the Williams case was not tried.

“We chose to go with the strongest cases against the two that would result in the death penalty,” said Lake County, Indiana prosecutor Jack Crawford. “It appeared that Williams was killed in Michigan, which does not have the death penalty.”

For Robert and Zenota Williams, Donna’s parents, punishment is not foremost on their minds. “I will always wonder what, exactly, happened,” Zenota Williams told the Detroit Free Press in a retrospective on the spree three years later.

Three other homicides tied to the pair will also probably not ever be tried: the slaying of 77-year-old Eugene Scott of Indianapolis and the killings of Virginia Temple and her 10-year-old daughter in Toledo.

Scott was suspected of being their last murder victim because his car was found in Evanston, Ill. where they were arrested.

From Toledo, the pair continued south, stopping long enough in Cincinnati to murder Marlene Waters, who was found bludgeoned to death in the basement of her home.

Waters’ husband was badly beaten in the attack and left for dead. Coleman and Brown stole the Waters’ car and headed to Lexington, Ky., where they abandoned the car in a cornfield.

In nearby Williamsburg, the duo kidnapped Oline Carmical and drove to Dayton, Ohio leaving Carmical locked in the trunk of his car. An elderly Dayton couple was found beaten and gagged in their home after the fugitives stole their car. Another Dayton couple reported to police that Coleman and Brown robbed them.

The trip from Tamika Turks’ murder to the crimes in Indianapolis took less than a month, with the pair committing felonies on the average of crime every other day. In all, the murderous 53-day rampage – from the time Coleman raped and murdered the 9-year-old in Kenosha, Wis., to the time they were arrested in Illinois -- resulted in a slew of felonies: eight homicides, as many as seven rapes, three kidnappings and 14 armed robberies.


Capture

Some time after the murders of the Temples and Scott, Coleman and Brown returned to the Waukegan area. Their case had inspired a great deal of notoriety across the country and Coleman had recently been named as a “special addition” the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list.

In becoming a special addition, Coleman joined such notable felons as H. Rap Brown and Martin Luther King’s murderer, James Earl Ray.

Coleman’s family aside, they had few friends left after their spree and it wasn’t surprising that when an acquaintance of Coleman’s saw the pair walking near Evanston, Ill., he would turn them in. Authorities had been watching Evanston closely because of Coleman’s known associates there and the fact that the duo had rented an apartment in Evanston prior to fleeing to Gary.

Knowing that there were few criminals as desperate as Coleman and Brown, authorities were cautious in making the arrest.

Once police pinpointed their location – the pair was spotted by undercover officers in a local park – state, local and federal authorities began to converge on the couple.

Shortly before noon on July 20, 1984 Coleman and Brown were watching a pick-up basketball game from the bleachers at Mason Park on the west side of Evanston as officers began to approach.

Coolly, as if he hadn’t a care in the world, Coleman began walking away as plainclothes and uniformed cops neared. Wearing a torn yellow shirt and sporting a short haircut unlike the jheri-curl ‘do he wore in published photos, Coleman surrendered peacefully when confronted. “You got the wrong man,” he told arresting officers. He provided two aliases and Brown identified herself as “Denise Johnson.”

She was carrying a loaded revolver and Coleman had a long knife hidden in his boot, but neither went for their weapon.

“They looked like they did on TV,” said an 11-year-old who witnessed the arrest. “The capture was quick and easy.”

Although there were some holes in the authorities’ investigation, it was clear that they had been expecting the two-person crime wave to return to Evanston. Neighbors in the area said they had heard for three weeks that Coleman and Brown would eventually turn up there.

The mood of the neighbors was as jubilant as that of police who clearly basked under the media spotlight. “There was a community awareness about him,” said one neighbor. “He wasn’t going to be able to come in here and snatch anybody. We were waiting for him.”

Residents of the Mason Park area told the media that Coleman looked tired and emaciated when arrested and they speculated that the lethal duo had “just run out of steam.”

Law enforcement officials thought along similar lines with one officer wondering if they had unconsciously wanted to do so: Coleman had never worried about leaving fingerprints at his crime scenes, and FBI agents said he was so lackadaisical it was almost as if he was trying to leave a calling card.

Those same fingerprints would eventually do in Alton Coleman. Despite his protests that officials had the wrong man, Evanston police were able to positively identify the man arrested in Mason Park as the man who left fingerprints at crime scenes in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and Kentucky. Fingerprints on file with the FBI conclusively proved that the suspects in custody were Coleman and Brown.


Courtroom Battles

With Coleman and Brown in custody, the problem fell to state and federal officials to untangle the slew of accusations against the couple and to decide which cases to prosecute. It was clear from the outset that the most punitive states would have first shot at the pair.

That meant capital crimes committed in Michigan and Wisconsin, which have no death penalty, would be tried last – if at all. “We want him first,” said Lake County DA Fred Foreman. “I’ve been in court with this man before and I want to bring him back.”

Brown and Coleman were separated by police and Debra, easily the most wanted woman in the country, was advised of her constitutional rights. She immediately invoked her right to remain silent and asked to speak to an attorney.

In the Evanston police station, the FBI agent who administered the Miranda warning continued to ask Brown questions about her identity – things like her name, age, birth date, and address, according to court documents. An Evanston detective questioned Brown as well, seeking clues to an attack in his jurisdiction for which the pair was suspected.

When the time came to transport Brown to the federal lockup, she spoke with agents on the trip to Chicago. Arriving at the federal building, she was once again advised of her rights and she once again refused to sign a waiver. She did, however, agree to talk to officers as long as she could stop when she wanted to.

Over the next two and a half hours, Brown discussed the crime spree in detail, in effect confessing to many of the crimes committed during the brief, but violent odyssey across the upper Midwest.

When she finished, she once again asked to speak with an attorney. No further inquiry was made until after Brown spoke to a lawyer.

During trial, Brown’s attorney protested that her Fifth Amendment right – the right against self-incrimination – was violated because authorities continued to interrogate after she had asked for counsel.

The trial court found that the Evanston detective did violate her rights and the evidence from his questioning was ruled inadmissible.

However, the confession given to federal authorities in Chicago was used in the trial and with it conviction was easily obtained.

Brown was sentenced to die for the murder of Tamika Turks. Later, Brown was sentenced to die for the Cincinnati murders, but she continued to be held on Indiana’s death row.

Coleman was convicted of the same murders and also sentenced to die. In January 1991 the governor of Ohio commuted Brown’s death sentence, saying she was retarded and “dominated by” Coleman. She is now serving two life sentences in Ohio for her crimes there. However, Indiana is not finished with her.

It took almost seven years, but in August 1991 the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had not erred by allowing the confession into evidence. The conviction and death sentence would stand.

The appeals court found that despite her repeated attempts to speak to an attorney, the confession was separated by “space, time and subject matter” from her first request for counsel that it was proper. Brown willfully gave the confession, the court noted, after being advised of her rights.

Interestingly, it was Brown’s conversations with authorities while she was being transported to federal custody that created the loophole which could result in her execution. She asked questions like “where am I going?” and “what am I charged with?”

Criminal defense attorneys fumed at the court’s decision, with one saying to the Indianapolis Star that the Fifth Amendment was being “squeezed to death.” “If you ask anything, you create an opening the state can drive a truck through,” said Daniel L. Toomey, who argued Brown’s case before the Court of Appeals. Today, Debra Brown, the only woman on Indiana’s Death Row, is serving out her sentences in Ohio. Whether or not she will ever see the executioner in the Hoosier State remains up in the air.

Alton Coleman is on Indiana’s death row, but he also won a small, but significant, court victory recently. In August 2000, ruling in a Virginia capital murder case, the U.S. Supreme Court said a murder defendant is entitled to constitutionally adequate legal representation.

Coleman’s attorneys immediately filed for relief under the high court’s ruling and the Court ordered the Indiana Supreme Court to reconsider Coleman’s death sentence.

Coleman alleged that during the sentencing phase of his trial his counsel was inadequate and did not bring up mitigating factors that might have spared Coleman from a trip to the electric chair. Alton suffered from a troubled childhood, a personality disorder and brain dysfunction, attorneys said.

The Indiana high court had already upheld his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. “Given these aggravating circumstances, even had his counsel presented the evidence of Coleman’s impoverishment and abuse, we see little likelihood the jury recommendation or the trial judge’s sentence would have been different,” wrote the Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court.

Even if the state of Indiana spares Alton Coleman, there are any number of prosecutors who are still awaiting a crack at him.

The chances of Coleman, or for that matter, Brown, ever seeing the outside of a prison cell are slim. If Indiana takes a pass on Coleman, then Ohio wants its turn, and if the Buckeye State spares his life, then it’s on to Kentucky.

Odds are that Alton Coleman, somewhere down the line, will pay for his crimes with his life.


Bibliography

Chicago Tribune, July 22, 1984, “Police Bask In Glory Of Fugitives' Arrests”

Detroit Free Press:
June 28, 1984, “FBI, Police Search For Slaying Suspect”
July 4, 1984, “Unsuspecting Residents Aid 2 Fugitives, FBI Says”
Friday, July 6, 1984, “Mother Fears 'Some Kind Of Spell'”
July 15, 1984,“Mother Frets For Daughter With Fugitive”
July 15, 1984, “Alton Coleman 'Smooth As Silk': Police Say Fugitive Has Frustrated Justice”
July 21, 1984, “Alton Coleman Held In Illinois: Bond Set At $25 Million Cash”
July 21, 1984, “The Chase For Alton Coleman”

Associated Press
February 13, 1987, “1984 Midwest Crime Spree Continues To Exact Price In Pain”

Indianapolis Star
August 30, 1991, “Murder Spree Conviction Upheld”
November 17, 1991, “Confession From A Killer: Did Police Cross The Line?”
February 3, 1998, “Lone Woman On State's Death Row Is In Ohio”
April 25, 2000, “High Court Edict May Aid State Death Row Inmate: Justices Tell Court To Restudy Sentence Of Murderer Who Claims He Received Ineffective Legal Counsel".



Supreme Court of Indiana

Brown v. State

Debra Denise BROWN, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 45S00-9212-PD-939.

July 17, 1998

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Indianapolis, Ken Murray, Columbus, OH, Janet S. Dowling, Evans, Dowling & Youngcourt, P.C., Indianapolis, for Appellant.Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General, Christopher L. LaFuse, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellee.

Petitioner Debra Denise Brown appeals the denial of post-conviction relief with respect to her convictions for Murder 1 and Attempted Murder,2 and her sentence of death.3  We earlier affirmed these convictions and this sentence on direct appeal.  Brown v. State, 577 N.E.2d 221 (Ind.1991), reh'g denied, 583 N.E.2d 125, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 833, 113 S.Ct. 101, 121 L.Ed.2d 61 (1992).   We now affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Background

Debra Denise Brown and her companion, one Alton Coleman, were convicted and sentenced to death in separate proceedings for stomping a seven-year old girl to death and attempting to choke a nine-year old girl to death with a belt after sexually assaulting the latter.   These crimes were part of a crime spree which also took Brown and Coleman to Ohio, Michigan and Illinois.   About a month after the Indiana crimes were committed, Brown was apprehended in Illinois and turned over to the FBI, which had been actively engaged in the investigation.

Our discussion infra and our opinions on Brown's and Coleman's direct appeals contain additional details of their crimes, trials, and claims for relief.   See Brown, 577 N.E.2d at 224-25;  Coleman v. State, 558 N.E.2d 1059, 1060-61 (Ind.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1259, 111 S.Ct. 2912, 115 L.Ed.2d 1075 (1991).

Discussion

I

Brown contends that she is entitled to post-conviction relief because the State violated its obligation to disclose material exculpatory evidence by failing to disclose prior to her trial certain psychological profiles and related materials compiled by the FBI.   As noted in Background, supra, Brown and Coleman had been interstate fugitives.   As such, the FBI prepared a psychological profile and related material on Brown to assist in her capture.   During preparation for Brown's trial, Indiana authorities had in their possession a substantial volume of FBI materials.   When the FBI sought to have these materials returned, Brown's trial counsel protested, contending that he had not yet had time to review all of the materials.   Upon a representation from the State that the files contained no exculpatory material, the trial judge permitted the materials to be returned to the FBI.

In preparation for post-conviction proceedings, Brown obtained four documents in the possession of the FBI which she contends are exculpatory.   Brown is, of course, correct that the State has an affirmative duty to disclose evidence favorable to a criminal defendant.  Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)).   Brown raises several interesting questions as to whether the State had a pre-trial obligation to disclose these four documents.   However, an allegation of a Brady violation requires a demonstration that the undisclosed favorable evidence “could be reasonably taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence” in the trial court's judgment.  Kyles, 514 U.S. at 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555.   We elect to proceed to that inquiry first.   Because we find that these four documents could not be reasonably taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the trial court's judgment, we hold that Brown is not entitled to post-conviction relief on this contention.4

A

We note first that while Brown seeks to have both her convictions and her sentence reversed on the basis of this claim, she makes no specific argument as to how these four documents undermine confidence in the jury's guilty verdicts.   Rather, her specific claims are that these documents contain important evidence of her psychological domination and control by Coleman, mitigating circumstances which should have been considered by the jury during the penalty phase.

Certainly the subject matter of these four documents comprise mitigating circumstances appropriate for consideration in a death penalty case.   Our death penalty statute specifically itemizes the domination and control of another person as a mitigating circumstance.5  Acting under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance is another statutory mitigating circumstance.6  And the mental health of the defendant is frequently considered as a mitigating circumstance under the “catch-all” mitigator.7  These four documents implicate each of these circumstances.

The first FBI document, Brown's Exhibit 31, states in pertinent part:

Coleman has a violent temper, and when he is upset he is uncontrollable.  * * * Ever since Coleman's mother died of cancer, Coleman seems to have gone off his rocker.  * * * Debra Denise Brown has lived with Coleman and his blind grandmother for the past two years.   Brown has lost about 35 pounds during this time.   She has been virtually a prisoner in the house.   If she left without Coleman, he would beat her.   During [an] interview with FBI agents, Brown was very docile.   She admitted that scars and scratches on her face were from Coleman.   It is believed that she is completely under the control of Coleman.

(R. at 1894-96.) 8  The second and third FBI documents, Brown's Exhibits 32 and 33, contain essentially the same information.  (R. at 1898;  1902.)   The fourth FBI document, Brown's Exhibit 36, is an extensive report prepared by the FBI regarding her background, including an interview with Lottie Mae Brown, Brown's mother.   The report indicates that:

1.  Brown's father had severe mental problems, drank to excess, and physically abused family members including the children.

2. Brown had experienced a drug overdose which required hospitalization in 1980 and may have been using drugs regularly.

3. Brown's personality changed drastically after she met Coleman.

4. Brown moved in with Coleman and would not talk to her family, but would look to Coleman to answer for her.

5. Brown's mother felt that Coleman completely controlled Brown and that she would do whatever Coleman asked her to do;  Brown's mother also believed that Coleman was beating Brown and using her as a prostitute.

6. Brown's mother had seen Brown with her face “all beaten up” during the time Brown was living with Coleman.

(R. at 1931.)

B

From the very outset of the penalty phase, defense counsel made it clear that his principal argument would be that Brown should not be sentenced to death because she had been acting “under the substantial domination of Alton Coleman.”  (T.R. at 3344.)   In a powerful fourteen page opening statement to the jury at the beginning of the penalty phase, defense counsel spent thirteen pages of it emphasizing Coleman's control over Brown.  (T.R. at 3385-3400.)   Specific testimony to this effect was presented by defense counsel throughout the penalty phase.

Counsel proceeded to make his argument primarily through expert testimony.   First, a Dr. Batacan, a psychiatrist who had examined Coleman, testified as to Coleman's manipulative personality.   Then a Dr. Periolet, another psychiatrist who had examined Coleman, testified that one characteristic of Coleman's sociopathic personality was that he would assess who he could control.   Counsel then called a Beverly Perkins, Coleman's ex-wife, who testified that Coleman used physical violence and threats of harm to her family whenever she tried to leave their apartment to do something by herself.

Next counsel called a Dr. Kelly, a psychiatrist, who testified as to the results of his examination of Brown.   Dr. Kelly had examined Brown twice and also discussed the results of his examination with a psychologist, Dr. Rogers, who had independently examined her.   In compiling the results of his examination, Dr. Kelly also examined additional hospital records, school records and the report of another psychologist, Dr. Suran, concerning Brown.   Dr. Kelly testified as to Brown's difficult upbringing, based on his conversation with members of her family, including her mother and sister.   He discussed her poor school record, a serious auto accident in which she had been involved, and her record of truancy from school.   He noted that her school records showed an IQ at the age of 12 of 59 and a current IQ of 74.

In Dr. Kelly's expert opinion, Brown suffered from the mental illness of dependent personality disorder.   Among the causes of the dependent personality disorder identified by Dr. Kelly were her limited intelligence and difficult family upbringing.   Dr. Kelly also gave his expert opinion that Brown was under the domination and control of Coleman at the time of the crime and that she was a good candidate for rehabilitation.

Defense counsel also called a Dr. Suran, a clinical psychologist, who had conducted a diagnostic psychological evaluation of Brown, including a social history.   Dr. Suran reported that Brown scored 75 on the Wechsler IQ test and that she functioned as mildly retarded.   His examination showed her to have “a very depraved background” and that she never evolved to the level of emotional development consistent with her age.   More specifically, in his interview with her dealing with her family and background, he learned that she had been the subject of “frequent and repeated physical abuse, sexual abuse, and a very strong sense of rejection and abandonment.”   Dr. Suran found Brown to be the victim of severe environmental deprivation.

It was Dr. Suran's expert opinion that Brown suffered from borderline retardation, depression, and had a dependent personality or passive dependent personality.   Dr. Suran also made reference to Brown's childhood abuse, collected school and medical records, and noted her childhood mental retardation diagnosis.

Two statements from Dr. Suran's testimony bear citation here:

ndependent of her relationship with Alton Coleman, I really find no evidence in Debra's personality or functioning of tendencies to commit the kinds of offenses for which she has been convicted, and it is my conclusion that it is only in and through her relationship with Alton Coleman that she has had any involvement in these crimes.

(T.R. at 3746-47).   Further:

I do not find in Debra Brown the kind of impulse type of hostile, aggressive, resolved or unresolved, instincts and impulses that is capable of committing the kinds of offenses for which she has been convicted.   What I do find is a pathological degree of dependent behavior on her part that through association with another agent that was capable and that did have such hostile impulses that she would act out those impulses dependently serving the other agent, in this case, the agent being Alton Coleman.

(T.R. at 3757.)

The trial court gave reasonably extensive treatment to this evidence in its sentencing order:

There is a large quantity of evidence from the reports and testimony of a clinical psychologist who examined defendant Brown on April 18, 1986 and testified at trial and the report of a psychiatrist who examined Deborah [sic] Brown on August 1 and August 8, 1984, and testified at trial and other psychological reports that the Defendant was under the substantial domination of her co-defendant at the time these offenses were committed.   The Court has already detailed the Defendant's mental state at the time of the commission of these offenses.   It is agreed by the experts that the Defendant was a young woman with borderline intellectual functioning with a dependent personality disorder.   It is further agreed that she had demonstrated an inability to function independently and to assume responsibility for major areas of her life.   It is evident from her interview with Dr. Suran that Alton Coleman provided her with attention and support and that he is someone that this defendant became devoted to.   Further evidence was presented of the dominant, manipulative personality of Alton Coleman.   Truly he is such a person and appears to be totally without conscience.   The affect of such a person on one with Deborah [sic] Brown's inadequacies is also obvious.   The central question to this Court is whether or not Deborah [sic] Brown was so under the domination of Alton Coleman because of her own inadequacies and personality disorders that she could not make a rational choice as to her own participation in repeated violent criminal acts, accompanied by repeated efforts to deceive intended victims and others and to evade prosecution.   Defendant Brown was not and is not insane nor mentally ill.   She was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs.   In the opinion of this Court she made a choice to follow Coleman and to prove herself to him.   She stated to Dr. Suran “I know I have to suffer for what I did, but I'll give my life for him.   I'll fight for my husband's (Coleman) life.   I'll go down for him.   I'll put my life on the roll for him ․ I loved him so much, I told him that I would go down with him, and I would give up my life for him.”   The Court would agree that defendant Brown reached her decision making processes in this crime spree with limited intellectual tools.   But the Defendant made a rational decision to become involved with Coleman no matter what the consequences, including these horrible crimes committed against innocent children and many others including at least two other vicious murders.   The domination over this defendant by Alton Coleman is not sufficient to excuse her criminal conduct.

(T.R. at 355-57.)

It is true that at the post-conviction hearing, both trial counsel and the experts who testified at trial indicated that they would have been able to make their case that Brown was under Coleman's domination and control more persuasively had they known what was in the four FBI documents.   The post conviction court disagreed, finding that these materials did not add anything to the evidence which was presented to the jury.   We find no basis to disagree with this conclusion.9  While the FBI reports contained information relevant to mitigating circumstances appropriate for consideration in the penalty phase of Brown's trial, trial counsel in fact argued those mitigating circumstances vigorously with the help of expert testimony and the trial court clearly took them into account in pronouncing sentence.

C

In a related argument, Brown contends that the FBI wrongfully denied her access to a substantial quantity of documents concerning her case.10  She argues that this denial has prevented her from fully and adequately investigating, preparing and presenting her claim for post-conviction relief.   She further asserts that as a result certain federal and state constitutional rights have been violated.

Brown has not presented us with any basis for concluding that her ability to assert entitlement to post-conviction relief has been limited in any material way or that any of her constitutional rights have been violated as a result.   Brown's claim appears to be that there might be additional information in the FBI files of the character discussed in part I-A, supra, i.e., information showing that she was under the domination and control of Coleman.   But as we have already discussed, extensive evidence in support of this mitigating circumstance was presented to the jury and the court during the guilt and penalty phases of Brown's trial.   Nothing in Brown's argument gives us any basis for concluding that any undisclosed information “could be reasonably taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence” in the trial court's judgment, Kyles, 514 U.S. at 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555.

Brown's principal argument here seems to be along the lines that there might have been additional evidence in the FBI files supporting her claim of domination and control by Coleman.   But she also suggests entitlement to the FBI files “to learn what, if any, additional exculpatory information is hidden in the FBI files and to pursue whatever leads might be uncovered.”   Br. of Appellant at 121.   We have recently observed that the post-conviction relief process “is not a device for investigating possible claims, but a means for vindicating actual claims” and that “[t]here is no postconviction right to ‘fish’ through official files for belated grounds of attack on the judgment or to confirm mere speculation or hope that a basis for collateral relief may exist.”  Roche v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1115, 1132 (Ind.1997), reh'g denied (quoting People v. Gonzalez, 51 Cal.3d 1179, 275 Cal.Rptr. 729, 800 P.2d 1159, 1206 (1990)).   To the extent that Brown does not contend that there is any specific information in the FBI files that supports her claims to post-conviction relief, no rule of constitutional law or state procedure mandates unfettered access to the FBI files in the hopes of uncovering such.   See Roche, 690 N.E.2d at 1133 (citing State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 690 A.2d 1 (1997)).

II

Brown contends that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel to which she was entitled at the penalty phase of her trial because her lawyers failed fully to investigate, develop and present evidence at the penalty phase of her trial.   We analyze such claims according to the two-part test announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).   See e.g., Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind.1997), reh'g denied, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 906, 118 S.Ct. 2064, 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998);  Lowery v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1031, 1041 (Ind.1994).   First, we require the defendant or petitioner to show that, in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or wrongs of counsel were outside the range of professionally competent assistance.  Id.  This showing is made by demonstrating that counsel's performance was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms.  Id. (citing Turner v. State, 580 N.E.2d 665, 668 (Ind.1991)).  “Isolated poor strategy, bad tactics, a mistake, carelessness or inexperience do not necessarily amount to ineffective assistance of counsel unless, taken as a whole, the defense was inadequate.”  Davis v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1097, 1100 (Ind.1996) (quoting Terry v. State, 465 N.E.2d 1085, 1089 (Ind.1984)).   Second, we require the defendant or petitioner to show adverse prejudice as a result of the deficient performance.   This showing is made by demonstrating that counsel's performance was so prejudicial that it deprived defendant or petitioner of a fair trial.  Lowery, 640 N.E.2d at 1041.   See Games v. State, 690 N.E.2d 211, 213 (Ind.1997).   We will conclude that a fair trial has been denied when the conviction or sentence has resulted from a breakdown of the adversarial process that rendered the result unreliable.  Lowery, 640 N.E.2d at 1041 (citing Best v. State, 566 N.E.2d 1027, 1031 (Ind.1991)).

A

Brown's claim of failure fully to investigate, develop and present penalty phase evidence focuses on four areas:  (1) her family and upbringing;  (2) her intellectual and educational deficits;  (3) her absence of any criminal record or history of violence, and her generally positive character, prior to meeting Alton Coleman;  and (4) she was suffering from Battered Women's Syndrome.

At the post-conviction hearing, Brown presented extensive evidence in each of these areas.11  Nevertheless, the post-conviction court found that she had not been denied the effective assistance of counsel in this regard because prejudice had not been shown.   The post-conviction court concluded that given the seriousness of the crimes for which Brown had been convicted, the jury was unlikely to reach a different result even with this evidence.

Without reaching the issue of prejudice, we agree with the post-conviction court's conclusion because we do not find counsel's performance to have been deficient.   As discussed in part I, supra, counsel's strategy at the penalty phase was to argue that Brown should not be sentenced to death because she had been acting “under the substantial domination of Alton Coleman” when she committed the crimes for which she had been convicted.   In part I-B, supra, we detailed the testimony elicited by defense counsel at the penalty phase.   That recitation demonstrates that counsel did present to the jury at the penalty phase of Brown's trial evidence of her difficult family upbringing, her limited educational and intellectual abilities, her positive record of behavior prior to meeting Alton Coleman and, if not that she was explicitly the victim of Battered Women's Syndrome, that she functionally suffered from it at Coleman's hands.12  It appears to us that Brown's quarrel with her trial counsel is over the amount of evidence presented in these three areas at trial, not whether any investigation, development or presentation took place.13

On this record, we cannot say that counsel's performance was deficient in concentrating his penalty phase argument on Brown's relationship with Coleman.   To be more specific, we cannot say that it was deficient performance for counsel to marshal his witnesses to try to present as strong a case as possible that Brown committed the crimes for which she had been convicted under the domination and control of Coleman and that her submission to his domination and control was accounted for by her difficult upbringing, her limited IQ and her mental illness of dependent personality disorder.   Brown has not demonstrated deficient performance by her trial counsel in this regard.

B

In a related claim, Brown contends that the post-conviction court improperly excluded evidence relevant to her claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing fully to investigate, develop and present mitigating evidence.   She argues that the exclusion of this evidence denied her a full and fair post-conviction hearing.   According to Brown, the excluded evidence consisted of the following four items:

1.  The testimony of a Mr. See, a Cleveland-based executive of an offender re-entry program with experience as a witness concerning mitigating circumstances, which was “offered to show the social, racial and cultural environment in which Brown was raised and to demonstrate how the individuals and social service institutions charged with [Brown's] care defaulted on their responsibilities.”   Br. of Appellant at 93.   While See's testimony is of record, the post-conviction court ultimately excluded it.  (R. at 1637-38.)

2. Certain unspecified affidavits relevant to the claim of failure to investigate and discover mitigating evidence.   Br. of Appellant at 98.   These affidavits appear to be of the same nature as those discussed in part III-A of our recent opinion in Roche, 690 N.E.2d at 1131.   They are included in the record but were “not admitted.”  (R. at 98.)

3. The post-conviction testimony of Dr. Suran to “the effect of the recently discovered mitigating evidence on the conclusions he described at trial.”   Br. of Appellant at 99.   The record contains a filing styled “Proffer of Testimony of Bernard Suran, Ph.D.,” summarizing the testimony he would have given.  (R. at 506-08.)

4. A “social history report” prepared by a Mr. Coconis, a social worker with experience as an investigator of mitigating circumstances, which was to have been used as the basis of Dr. Suran's testimony.   Br. of Appellant at 101.   Although the State's objection to the introduction of this report was sustained, a copy is included in the record.  (R. at 1908-17.)

5. The post-conviction testimony of Brown's trial counsel, Mr. Toomey, as to whether he thought and felt he gave Brown effective representation at trial.   Br. of Appellant at 102.   The post-conviction court sustained the State's objection on grounds that the question of counsel's effectiveness was for the court to decide.  (R. at 1430.)

We find no error with respect to item (2), the exclusion of the affidavits.   See Roche, 690 N.E.2d at 1131 (affidavits prepared for similar purpose excluded).   We also find no error with respect to item (5), the prohibition on counsel's testifying as to his own ineffectiveness.   Compare Ind.Evidence Rule 704(a) (testimony is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact) and Evid.R. 704(b) (witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning legal conclusions).

Items (1), (3) and (4) all relate to Brown's family and upbringing, her intellectual and emotional development, her lack of criminal history before meeting Alton Coleman, and her relationship with Coleman.   The post-conviction court generally excluded this information on grounds that, even if it had been presented to the jury during the penalty phase of Brown's trial, it “would not have made a difference to the jury's recommendation or the trial court's sentence.” 14  (R. at 778.)   As such, the post-conviction court concluded, the prejudice prong of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel had not been satisfied.

We are not as willing as the post-conviction court to imply that there are circumstances in which no quantum of evidence would be sufficient to change a jury's recommendation or a trial court's sentence.   But, as noted at the outset of part II-A, supra, we find it unnecessary to analyze this issue in terms of prejudice.   Our purpose here is not to replay Brown's trial;  it is to determine whether she was denied the effective assistance of counsel to which she was entitled.   We concluded supra that counsel did not render deficient performance with respect to the presentation of mitigating circumstances.   The fact, without more, that the additional evidence excluded by the post-conviction court could have been presented at trial does not affect this conclusion.

III

Brown contends that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel to which she was entitled when counsel failed to present evidence of Brown's borderline mental retardation in support of his contention that Brown's confession had been involuntary.   Noting that this Court gave extensive consideration to the voluntariness of Brown's confession in her direct appeal, Brown, 577 N.E.2d at 229, the State argues that the issue is not available for relitigation here.   See Ind.Post-Conviction Rule 1(8);  Canaan, 683 N.E.2d at 235;  Lamb v. State, 511 N.E.2d 444, 447 (Ind.1987);  Ingram v. State, 508 N.E.2d 805, 807 (Ind.1987).

We agree with the State's argument that the doctrine of res judicata bars consideration of Brown's argument here.   Brown's argument is essentially this:  (1) her borderline retardation and mental illness (severe passive-dependent personality disorder) impacted her ability to make a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of her constitutional rights in giving her confession;  (2) her lawyer was unaware of case law that holds that evidence of mental retardation is relevant and material to determining whether or not a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his or her rights;  and (3) counsel's failure to know the law effectively precluded the suppression of Brown's confession.   As the phrasing of her argument suggests, a defendant's limited intelligence or mental health alone does not render a confession involuntary.   Indeed, in Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986), the United States Supreme Court said that the purpose of the Fifth Amendment's testimonial privilege against self-incrimination and the requirements of Miranda are to protect against police misconduct.  “Although a person's mental condition is relevant to the issue of susceptibility to police coercion, where the person voluntarily makes a confession without police coercion the confession may be considered in spite of the mental condition.”   Pettiford v. State, 619 N.E.2d 925, 928 (Ind.1993).   See Connelly, 479 U.S. at 167, 107 S.Ct. 515.   Thus the issue here really turns on whether the police conduct was coercive within the meaning of Connelly.   We decided this issue on direct appeal.  Brown, 577 N.E.2d at 230 (“no inducements or threats were made by law enforcement officials to gain the confession”).   It is not available for relitigation here.

IV

Brown contends that she was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel to which she was entitled in several respects.   As with claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, we analyze claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel according to the two-part test announced in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052.   See, e.g., Lowery, 640 N.E.2d at 1048 (“standard of review for a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is identical to the standard for trial counsel”).   A petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice.  Roche, 690 N.E.2d at 1120.   The failure to establish either prong will cause the claim to fail.  Id.

Brown first contends that her appellate counsel (who was the same as trial counsel) was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal the issues discussed in parts IV-A and IV-B, infra.   These were issues, Brown points out, that counsel raised in his motion to correct errors following trial but did not raise on direct appeal.15  The post-conviction court appears to have concluded that these contentions were tantamount to an argument “that appellate counsel did not pursue a claim in the direct appeal that the trial court judge erred in imposing the death sentence.”  (R. at 765.)   But, the post-conviction court continued, “Because the Supreme Court fulfilled its independent duty to review the propriety of the death sentence and upheld that sentence, that issue is res judicata.”   Id.  We find this conclusion too attenuated to affirm without further analysis.

The State points out that in the direct appeal, counsel raised five substantial errors for our review and rightly cites our opinion in Lowery to the effect that counsel is not required to raise every possible claim in a direct appeal.   As we said in Lowery, counsel should exercise professional judgment and expertise in choosing the issues raised on appeal.   Lowery, 640 N.E.2d at 1049.   This comports with the United States Supreme Court pronouncement to the same effect-that effective advocacy does not mandate that the appellate attorney raise each and every non-frivolous issue.   Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983).   See Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 194 (Ind.1997) (“the reviewing court should be particularly sensitive to the need for separating the wheat from the chaff in appellate advocacy, and should not find deficient performance when counsel's choice of some issues over others was reasonable in light of the facts of the case and the precedent available to counsel when that choice was made”), reh'g denied.   See also Page v. United States, 884 F.2d 300, 302 (7th Cir.1989) (“One of the principal functions of appellate counsel is winnowing the potential claims so that the court may focus on those with the best prospects.”).   Nevertheless we elect here to address the claims on the merits.

A

One of the mitigating circumstances specified in our death penalty statute is the absence of prior criminal history.   During the penalty phase, defense counsel questioned Dr. Suran as to whether Brown had any prior criminal history prior to her association with Coleman.   Dr. Suran testified that Brown had no criminal history prior to that time.   The crimes Brown committed with Coleman began in June, 1984, with the crimes that are the subject of this proceeding and then continued with additional crimes in Ohio in July of that year.   In rebuttal, the State introduced evidence over the objection of Brown's counsel that Brown had been convicted of a kidnaping which occurred after June, 1984.   Brown now says, “Defense counsel attempted to establish that Brown had no previous juvenile or adult criminal history prior to her crime spree with Coleman, which began in June, 1984.   Admission of a kidnaping conviction which occurred after June, 1984 did not logically tend to rebut the defense evidence.   Moreover, admission of [the evidence of the kidnaping conviction] impaired the jury's ability to find the existence of, or give weight to, the [absence of prior criminal history] statutory mitigator.”   Br. of Appellant at 81.

We have never been called upon to address whether evidence of crimes committed after the offense for which the defendant is on trial is admissible in rebuttal of an assertion of absence of prior criminal history on the defendant's behalf.   While such evidence is certainly not relevant to determining whether the defendant had a criminal history prior to committing the offense for which he or she is being tried, we nevertheless believe that such evidence is relevant to determining the weight to be given to the no prior criminal history mitigator.   See generally Cozzolino v. State, 584 S.W.2d 765, 768 (Tenn.1979) (evidence of subsequent crimes admissible in penalty phase only if it is relevant to an aggravating circumstance or a mitigating circumstance raised by the defendant).   We further note that two of the aggravating circumstances in this case were murders committed by Coleman and Brown (and reduced to conviction) after the date of the offenses for which she was being tried and Brown has never raised any question as to the propriety of using these later-occurring offenses as aggravating circumstances.   If Brown has no objection to using later-occurring offenses as aggravating circumstances to justify the imposition of the death sentence, the argument against the use of a later-occurring offense as rebuttal to a claim of no prior criminal history seems far less compelling.   We find the trial court well within its discretion to admit the evidence of the later occurring offense in rebuttal and consequently find no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal.

B

At the outset of proceedings in the trial court, Brown filed a motion to dismiss the death penalty count on grounds that the Indiana death penalty statute was unconstitutional.   This claim was raised again in the motion to correct errors but not on direct appeal.   Brown now argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to claim that the trial court erred by not denying the motion to dismiss.   As best as we can understand Brown's argument in this appeal, she contends that the Indiana death penalty statute is unconstitutional for failing to give adequate guidance to the sentencer in two respects:  (1) the statute does not provide any standard of proof for finding the existence of mitigating circumstances;  and (2) the statute does not provide any guidance as to how the sentencer is to assess the relative weight of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances found to exist.

We recently addressed the first of these claims in Matheney v. State, 688 N.E.2d 883, 902 (Ind.1997), reh'g denied.   Here, Brown argues “This capital sentencing [sic] permits the sentencer to arbitrarily apply any standard of proof to the existence of mitigators it chooses.   While the sentencer might apply some low standard of proof to mitigating circumstances, it is equally likely that the sentencer might apply a standard of proof which is higher than contemplated, possibly higher than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.   Furthermore, the sentencer is free to apply a completely subjective standard of proof to mitigating circumstances which effectively bars the consideration of both statutory and non-statutory mitigating circumstances.”   But in Matheney we said, “Without something specific in the given jury instructions which would clearly lead a jury to such a misunderstanding, a bald assertion as to what a jury is likely to presume will not suffice.”  Matheney, 688 N.E.2d at 902.   Brown's argument is even weaker than Matheney's because the record reveals that the trial court instructed Brown's jury, “A circumstance need not be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be considered a mitigating circumstance by you.”  (T.R. at 290.).

As to the second contention, we resolved the question of whether our death penalty statute provides adequate guidance to the sentencer on the assessment of the relative weight to aggravating and mitigating circumstances adverse to Brown's position in Miller v. State, 623 N.E.2d 403, 408-09 (Ind.1993) (citing Fleenor v. State, 514 N.E.2d 80 (Ind.1987))

C

Brown contends that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to claim on direct appeal that the Indiana death penalty statute was unconstitutional as applied to Brown in this case because it failed to narrow the class of persons eligible for capital punishment.   Specifically, she argues that the first aggravating circumstance alleged by the State in support of its death penalty request, that Brown intentionally killed while committing child molesting, duplicated the elements of the underlying murder and child molesting charges.   She begins by observing that the United States Supreme Court held in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 108 S.Ct. 546, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988), to the effect that a legislature may achieve the constitutionally required narrowing either by defining certain murders as capital offenses or by requiring findings of aggravating circumstances at the penalty phase.   Noting that Indiana has chosen the later approach, she contends that in her situation no narrowing occurred because the aggravating circumstance charged was no different than the underlying offenses with which she was charged.   As the State properly points out, this court has previously held that such a contention misconstrues the narrowing function of our death penalty statute:

Appellant ․ claims that the overlap between the aggravating circumstance found at the sentencing phase and the convictions at the guilt phase violates constitutional principles by eliminating the critical narrowing function of the sentencing process, allowing the State to enter the penalty phase with the aggravating circumstance already proven beyond a reasonable doubt.   Our death penalty statute requires the sentencer to find at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, to consider and evaluate any mitigating factor it may find to exist, and to weigh the aggravators and mitigators, finding that the mitigating circumstances are outweighed by the aggravating circumstances, before it may impose death.   This scheme adequately structures and channels the discretion of the jury and the court and satisfies the ruling in Lowenfield v. Phelps[.]

Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1170, 1183 (Ind.1992).

D

Brown contends that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise three claims of trial court error in instructing the jury.16  Brown's assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel are conclusory in nature and not supported by any argument or authority as to deficient performance.   We find such claims waived for failure to comply with Ind.Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7) (requiring an appellant's brief to set forth “the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, reasons in support of the contentions along with citations to authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied upon”).

V

Brown contends that the operation of the Lake County public defender system created a conflict of interest for her trial counsel, denying her the effective assistance of counsel.   The conflict alleged appears to be that counsel's loyalty to Brown was compromised by his loyalty to the trial court judge who, under the Lake County scheme, appointed him.   Brown also argues that Lake County public defenders were provided insufficient resources by the judges.

Brown's claim is similar to-though less developed than-several claims recently rejected by this court.   See Johnson v. State, 693 N.E.2d 941, 952 (Ind.1998) (alleging systemic deficiencies in the Madison County public defender system), reh'g denied;  Roche, 690 N.E.2d at 1135 (Lake County);  Games v. State, 684 N.E.2d 466, 478-80 (Ind.1997) (Marion County), reh'g granted on other grounds, 690 N.E.2d 211.   We reach the same conclusion here.   First, absent authority or cogent argument from Brown, we decline to find that any conflict of interest that might exist as a result of a trial judge appointing the public defender in his or her court rises to the level of constitutional violation.17  Second, irrespective of whether there were problems with the Lake County public defender system, Brown must show that her trial counsel provided deficient performance and that it was prejudicial.   Johnson, 693 N.E.2d at 953.   Brown has shown neither deficient performance nor prejudice.

Conclusion

We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief with respect to Debra Denise Brown's convictions for Murder and Attempted Murder and sentence of death.

FOOTNOTES

1.  Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1 (1982).

2.  Ind.Code §§ 35-41-5-1 & 35-41-1-1 (1982).

3.  Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9 (Supp.1983).   Unless otherwise indicated, references to Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9 refer to the version published in the 1983 Supplement to the Indiana Code, the death penalty statute in effect at the time the crimes at issue were committed.

4.  Following oral argument in this case, Brown filed a motion seeking “judgment on the arguments and concessions of the State.”   She contends that certain statements made by the deputy attorney general arguing the case concerning the FBI material “effectively conceded error of constitutional magnitude.”   Appellant's Verified Motion for Judgment on the Arguments and Concessions of the State (July 25, 1997).   To the extent the State made any concessions in this regard, the State most assuredly did not concede that the FBI documents introduced at the post-conviction proceeding “could be reasonably taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence” in the trial court's judgment.  Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995).   Appellant's motion is denied.For many years in capital cases, this Court has greatly appreciated and valued the willingness of the State to acknowledge the legitimacy of contentions made by criminal defendants and weaknesses in its own cases.   Brown's attempt to turn into an admission of constitutional error the State's longstanding policy of forthright and candid discussion of the issues is not well taken.

5.  Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(c)(5) (“The mitigating circumstances that may be considered under this section are as follows:  ․ The defendant acted under the substantial domination of another person.”).

6.  Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(c)(2) (“The mitigating circumstances that may be considered under this section are as follows:  ․ The defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance when he committed the murder.”).

7.  Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(c)(7) (“The mitigating circumstances that may be considered under this section are as follows:  ․ Any other circumstances appropriate for consideration.”).

8.  Citations to the record of post-conviction proceedings are denominated as “R.”;   to the trial record as “T.R.”

9.  The post-conviction court also concluded that this evidence did not constitute exculpatory evidence and that there was no evidence before it that established that the information in question was ever in the possession of the State.   We find it unnecessary to address these findings.

10.  Brown represented to us that she pursued, in a timely manner, all available agency and administrative appeals and that these appeals were denied.   Appellant's Verified Motion to Compensate and Authorize Counsel to Pursue Necessary Collateral Litigation (Dec. 20, 1996).   She then sought a mandate from this court for funds to litigate a Freedom of Information Act claim against the FBI in federal court.   We denied this request by Order dated January 6, 1997.

11.  The post-conviction court excluded some of this evidence.   Brown's claim of error in this regard is discussed in part II-B, infra.

12.  While Brown asserts that she was the victim of Battered Women's Syndrome in her post-conviction appeal brief, she points us to no evidence presented to the post-conviction court that actually uses the term “Battered Women's Syndrome.”

13.  We note in this regard Brown's use of the adverb “fully” to describe counsel's alleged deficient performance, e.g., “Trial counsel's failure to fully investigate, develop and present penalty phase evidence denied Brown the effective assistance of counsel.”   Br. of Appellant at 51 (emphasis supplied).

14.  As Brown points out, there is language in the post-conviction court's findings and conclusions that suggests that although the post-conviction court announced during the proceedings that the additional evidence of mitigating circumstances was being excluded, the court did take it into account in its findings.   See Br. of Appellant at 92.

15.  At the time of Brown's direct appeal, raising an issue in a motion to correct errors was a prerequisite to appellate review.

16.  Brown also challenges these and an additional instruction as erroneous.   Claims of trial court error in instructing the jury not raised on direct appeal are not available for post-conviction review unless the failure to raise them was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel or, perhaps, unless they constituted fundamental error.   Although Brown refers to these instructions as “fundamentally erroneous” in the caption to the relevant section of her brief, the narrative portion of that section makes no effort to demonstrate fundamental error.   We find such claims, even if available under the fundamental error doctrine, waived for failure to comply with Ind.Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7).

17.  The conflict of interest present in the sole case cited by Brown involved two lawyers jointly engaged to represent three co-defendants at separate trials.  Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980).   Such a conflict is, of course, very different from the one Brown asserts.

SULLIVAN, Justice.
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned
coleman02.jpg

Alton Coleman


coleman01.jpg


Alton Coleman on Death Row



colemanbrown.jpg

colemanbrown1.jpg

Alton Coleman and Debra Brown in 1985.
(AP file photo)



debra_brown01.jpg

Debra Denise Brown


debra_brown02.jpg

Debra Denise Brown


debra_brown03.jpg

Debra Denise Brown


debra_brown04.jpg


Debra Denise Brown
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned
debra-brown-1.jpg

Debra Brown


debra-brown-2.jpg

Debra Brown


debra-brown-3.jpg

Debra Brown


debra-brown-4.jpg

Debra Brown


debra-brown-5.jpg

Debra Brown


coleman-brown-1.jpg

Alton Coleman and Debra Brown


coleman-brown-2.jpg

Alton Coleman and Debra Brown in 1985.
(AP file photo)



coleman-brown-3.jpg

Alton Coleman and Debra Brown


alton-coleman-1.jpg

Alton Coleman


alton-coleman-2.jpg

Alton Coleman


alton-coleman-3.jpg

Alton Coleman


debra-brown-11.jpg

debra-brown-12.jpg
debra-brown-13.jpg

Debra Brown


debra-brown-14.jpg

debra-brown-15.jpg
debra-brown-16.jpg

Debra Brown
 

Airbornemama

Something Ironic...
This user was banned
Awesomely LOOONG read! Those fucks were terrible people! Reading what they did to those children was hard and very sad! I'm glad that one little girl survived, but I bet it's been a hard life. Thanks for the epic post b2ux! :5stars::tu:
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned
Ricardo Muñoz Ramirez

ramirez_000.jpg


A.K.A.: "Richard Ramírez" - "The Night Stalker"

Classification: Serial killer
Characteristics: Rape - Robberies - Mutilation
Number of victims: 13 - 16 +
Date of murders: 1984 - 1985
Date of arrest: August 25, 1985
Date of birth: February 29, 1960
Perfil víctimas: Jennie Wincow (79) / Dayle Okazaki (34) / Tsai "Veronica" Lan Yu (30) / Vincent Zazzara (64), and his wife Maxine (44) / William "Bill" Doi (66) / Mable "Ma Bell" Keller (83) / Mary Louise Cannon (75) / Joyce Lucille Nelson (61) / Max (68), and Lela Kneiding (66) / Chainarong Khovananth (32) / Elyas Abowath (35)
Method of murder: Shooting - Stabbing - Beating
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
Status: Sentenced to death on November 7, 1989

Ricardo "Richard" Muñoz Ramírez (born February 29, 1960 in El Paso, Texas) is a convicted Mexican American serial killer awaiting execution on California's death row at San Quentin State Prison. Prior to his capture, Ramírez was dubbed the "Night Stalker" by the news media as he terrorized California.

Early life

Ramírez may have been influenced into becoming a murderer by his cousin Mike, a Special Forces Vietnam War veteran who boasted of killing and torturing his Vietnamese enemies and showed him Polaroid pictures of his victims. Ramírez was present the night Mike shot and killed his wife, and her blood splattered on Ramirez's face.

Criminal career

On March 17, 1985, Ramírez attacked 22-year old María Hernández outside her home. He shot her before entering her house. Inside was Dayle Okazaki, age 34, whom Ramírez immediately shot and killed. Hernández survived. The bullet had ricocheted off the keys she held in her hands, as she lifted them to protect herself. Within an hour of killing Okazaki, Ramírez struck again in Monterey Park. He jumped 30-year-old Tsai-Lian Yu and pulled her out of her car onto the road. He shot her several times and fled. A policeman found her still breathing, but she died before the ambulance arrived. The two attacks occurring on the same day bolstered media attention, and in turn caused panic and fear among the public. The news media dubbed the attacker, who was described as having long curly hair, bulging eyes and wide-spaced rotting teeth, "The Walk-in Killer" and "The Valley Intruder".

On March 27, Ramírez shot Vincent Zazarra, age 64, and his wife Maxine, age 44. Mrs. Zazzara's body was mutilated with several stab wounds and a T-carving on her left breast, and her eyes were gouged out. The autopsy determined that the mutilations were post-mortem. Ramírez left footprints in the flower beds, which the police photographed and cast. This was virtually the only evidence that the police had at the time. Bullets found at the scene were matched to those found at previous attacks, and the police realized a serial killer was on the loose. Vincent and Maxine's bodies were discovered in their Whittier home by their son, Peter.

By this time, a multi-county police investigation was in operation. The law enforcement agencies worked through the month of April with no additional attacks by Ramírez. Two months after killing the Zazzara couple, Ramírez attacked a Chinese couple, Harold Wu, age 66, who was shot in the head, and his wife, Jean Wu, age 63, was punched, bound, and then violently raped. For unknown reasons, Ramírez decided to let her live. Ramírez's attacks were now in full throttle. He left behind more clues to his identity, and was named 'The Night Stalker' by the media. Survivors of his attacks provided the police with a description of a tall Hispanic and long dark haired man.

On May 29, 1985, Ramírez attacked Malvial Keller, 83, and her disabled sister, Blanche Wolfe, 80, beating each with a hammer. Ramírez attempted to rape Keller, but failed. Using lipstick, he drew pentagrams on Keller's thigh and on the wall in the bedroom. Blanche survived the attack. The next day, Ruth Wilson, 41, was bound, raped, and sodomized by Ramírez, while her 12-year old son was locked in a closet. Ramírez slashed Wilson once, and then bound her and her son together, and left.

In June and July, three more women were killed. Two had their throats slit, one was beaten to death, and all three had their homes invaded in the process. On July 5 Whitney Bennett, age 16, survived being beaten with a tire iron. On July 7 Linda Fortuna, 63, was attacked and Ramírez tried to rape her, but failed. On July 20 he again struck twice. In Sun Valley he shot and killed a 32-year-old man, Chitat Assawahem, and his wife Sakima, 29, was beaten and forced to perform oral intercourse. Ramírez then collected valuables and proceeded to leave. Later in the same day a Glendale couple, Maxson Kneiding, 66, and his wife Lela, also 66, were shot and their corpses mutilated.

On August 6 Ramírez shot both Christopher Petersen, 38, and his wife, Virginia, 27, in the head. Miraculously, they both survived. On August 8 Ramírez attacked a Diamond Bar couple, fatally shooting Ahmed Zia, 35, before raping, sodomizing, and forcing Zia's wife, Suu Kyi, 28, to perform fellatio on him. The description of their attacker fit the previous ones given for "The Walk-in Killer".

Ramírez then left the Los Angeles area, and on August 17, he shot to death a 66-year-old man in San Francisco, also shooting and beating his wife. The wife survived her wounds and was able to identify her attacker as "The Walk-in Killer" from police sketches. Since "The Walk-in Killer" no longer fit the modus operandi of the attacker, the news media re-dubbed him the "Night Stalker".

The next big break in the case came on August 24, 1985, Ramírez traveled 50 miles south of Los Angeles to Mission Viejo, and broke into the Mediterranean Village apartment of Bill Carns, 29, and his fiancée, Inez Erickson, 27. Ramírez shot Carns in the head and raped Erickson. He demanded she swear her love for Satan and afterwards, forced her to perform oral intercourse on him. He then tied her and left. Erickson struggled to the window and saw the car Ramírez was driving. She was able to give a description of both Ramírez and his orange Toyota station wagon. A teenager later identified the car from news reports and wrote down half its license plate number. The stolen car was found on August 28, and police were able to obtain one fingerprint that was on the mirror of the vehicle. The prints belonged to one Richard Muñoz Ramírez, who was described as a 25-year-old drifter from Texas with a long rap sheet that included many arrests for traffic and illegal drug violations.

Two days later, his mugshots were broadcast on national television and printed on the cover of every major newspaper in California. The next day Ramírez was identified, surrounded, and severely beaten by an angry mob in East Los Angeles as he was trying to steal a car. Police had to break up the mob to prevent them from killing Ramírez.

Trial and conviction

Jury selection for the case started on July 22, 1988, and on September 20, 1989, he was found guilty of 13 counts of murder, 5 attempted murders, 11 sexual assaults and 14 burglaries. During the penalty phase of the trial on November 7, 1989, he was sentenced to die in California's gas chamber. The trial of Richard Ramírez was one of the most difficult and longest criminal trials in American history. Nearly 1,600 prospective jurors were interviewed. More than one hundred witnesses testified, and while a number of witnesses had a difficult time recalling certain facts four years after the crimes, others were quite certain of the identity of Richard Ramírez.

On August 3, 1988 the Los Angeles Times reported that some jail employees overheard Ramírez planning to shoot the prosecutor with a gun, which Ramírez intended to have smuggled into the courtroom. Consequently, a metal detector was installed outside of the courtroom and intensive searches were conducted on people entering. On August 14, the trial was interrupted because one of the jurors, Phyllis Singletary, did not arrive to the courtroom. Later that day she was found shot to death in her apartment. The jury was terrified; they could not help but wonder if Ramírez had somehow directed this event from inside his prison cell, and if he could reach other jury members. However, Ramírez was not responsible for Singletary's death; she had been shot and killed by her boyfriend, who later killed himself with the same weapon in a hotel. The alternative juror who replaced Singletary was too frightened to return to her home.

By the time of the trial, Ramírez had fans who were writing him letters and paying him visits. Since 1985, freelance magazine editor Doreen Lioy wrote him nearly 75 letters during his incarceration. In 1988 he proposed to her, and on October 3, 1996, they were married in California's San Quentin State Prison. Lioy has stated that she will commit suicide when Ramírez is executed.

Appeals

On August 7, 2006 his first round of state appeals ended unsuccessfully when the California Supreme Court upheld his convictions and death sentence. On September 7, 2006, the California Supreme Court denied his request for a rehearing.

Wikipedia.org

Victims

The following is a list of Richard Ramirez's victims, from the book Night Stalker by Clifforord L. Linedecker.

· June 28, 1984---Jennie Vincow, 79, Glassell Park. Her throat was slashed. Murder, Burglary.

· March 17, 1985--Dayle Okazaki, 34, and Maria Hernandez, 20, Rosemead. Dayle was shot to death. Murder, attempted murder, robbery.

· March 17, 1985--Veronica Yu, 30, Monterey Park. Drug from her car and shot. Murder.

· March 27, 1985--Vincent Zazzara, 64 and his wife Macine, 44, Whittier. Stabbed and mutilated. Two counts of murder, sexual charges.

· May 14, 1985----Bill Doi, 66, Monterey Park. Shot to death. Murder, robbery, sexual charges.

· May 30, 1985----Carol Kyle, 41, Burbank. Rape, Sodomy, oral copulation, burglary. Burglary, sex charges, robbery.

· June 1, 1985----Mable "Ma Bell" Bell, 83, and sister, Florence "Nettie" Lang, 80, Monrovia. Keller was bludgeoned to death, and satanic symbol were scrawed in various placces. Murder, attempted murder, robbery.

· July 2, 1985----Mary Louise Cannon, 75, Arcadia. Beaten and throat slashed. Murder, burglary.

· July 5, 1985----Whitney Bennett, 16, Sierra Madre. Attempted murder, burglary.

· July 7, 1985----Joyce Lucille Nelson, 61, Monterey Park. Beaten to death. Murder, burglary.

· July 7, 1985----Sophie Dickman, 63, Monterey Park. Raped and sodomized. Burglary, robbery, sex charges.

· July 20, 1985---Max, 68, and Lela Kneiding, 66, Glendale. Both shot to death. two counts of murder, robbery.

· July 20, 1985---Chainarong Khovananth, 32, Sun Valley. Shot to death...his son and wife were both sodomized. Murder, robbery, burglary, sex offenses.

· August 8, 1985--Elyas Abowath, 35, Diamond Bar. Shot while sleeping. Murder, robbery, burglary, rape

Richard Ramirez

"Big deal, death comes with the territory......see you in Disneyland."
Richard Ramirez's reaction to receiving 19 death sentences.

"You maggots make me sick, I will be avenged. Lucifer dwells within us all."
Ricky attempts to sound tough.

Richard Ramirez career started in June 1984 when he broke into a house and raped then killed a 79 year old woman, Jennie Vincow, in a suburb of L.A.

In February of 1985 he abducted two girls in separate incidents. The first was a six year old girl, taken from a bus stop near her school in a laundry bag, then molested and dumped at a nearby location. Two weeks later Richard took another girl, a nine year old, from her bedroom and raped, then dumped her, nearby.

On March 17 Ramirez was described by the survivor of the first "Valley Intruder" attack. Dayle Okazaki was murdered and her roommate, Maria Hernandez, was badly injured. While leaving the scene of this first killing Ramirez dragged Tsa Lian Yu from her car and proceeded to shoot her several times. Lian Yu was pronounced dead the next day.

Ramirez seemed so impressed with these attacks that he abducted another young girl 2 days later, raping her repeatedly before allowing her to leave, in what would seem like a celebration of the earlier attacks.

March 27 : The Zazzara murders. Ramirez beat 64-year-old Vincent Zazzara to death, then stabs his wife, Maxine ,44, to death. Ramirez proceeded to carve out her eyes and take them with him. The bodies were found two days later by their son.

On May 14 Ramirez broke into anothe house and killed the owner, William Doi, with a bullet to the head. Doi was able to make it to a phone first though, not allowing enough time for Ramirez to get his wife.

Just two weeks later, on May 29, Ramirez had some fun with an 84-year-old, Mabel Bell, and 81-year-old, Florence Lang(an invalid). Ramirez violently beat them and then scratched satanic symbols over them, and their house. The two were not found until June 2. Bell died on July 15, but Lang survived the attack.

On June 27 Patty Higgins had her throat cut, dying, in another "stalker" attack in her own home. And on July 2, Mary Cannon,77, was killed in similar style. Cannon lived less than two miles from Higgins.

July 7, Joyce Nelson, 61, was beaten to death at her home.

On July 20 Ramirez decided to do a double. First off he killed Chainarong Khovanath, 32, then beat and raped his wife. Not content with that he took their 8-year-old son into the next room with a bottle of baby oil. Mrs. Khovanath was forced to listen as Ramirez raped him, then he stole about $30,000 in cash and jewellery. Ramirez then drove to a neighbouring suburb and murdered Max Kneiding, 69, and his wife Lela, 66. The couple didn't even have time to get out of their bed.

On August 6 Ramirez screwed up and left both his victims wounded. Christopher Peterson,38, and his wife Virginia, 27, where able to give a description of their attacker, which matched that of all other survivors.

August 8, Ramirez strikes again. He kills Elyas Abowath, 35, shooting him then brutally beating his wife. It is after this attack that police announce that they are after a serial killer, linking six of the murders. The press dub Ramirez as "The Night Stalker".

On August 17 Ramirez struck in San Francisco, his first attack outside L.A., killing the amusingly named Peter Pan, 66, and badly beating and then shooting his wife. She survived her wounds and identified the 'stalker' from police sketches taken from the earlier survivors.

August 24, Ramirez wounds Bill Carns, 29, with three bullets to the head. He then raped Carn's fiancee, Inez Erickson, twice. As Ramirez drove away Erickson seen his car. It was an orange Toyota station wagon. A local teenager also noticed the car and it's driver. He took down then number plate and gave it to police. The end was near.

On August 30 police found the car abandoned. From it they lifted a single finger print. Ramirez was identified. They issued a APB for Ramirez and his mug shots were shown on national TV.

The next day Ramirez's picture was on the cover of every major newspaper in the state, and on every TV news bulletin. Ramirez had no idea of this until he walked into a liquor store and seen himself staring at him from that days newspaper. Ramirez panicked as other customers realised that it was him. He ran 2 miles in the next 12 minutes, then decided to steal a car. Unfortunately for Ramirez he was in a particularly tough neighbourhood and ended up being rescue by the police as he was being beaten badly by the local thugs. The 'Night Stalker' was caught.

Quotes and Interesting little bits of Information

Bill Carns and Inez Erickson never married.

"You know who I am, don't you? I'm the one they're writing about in the newspapers and on TV" - As said to Inez Erickson prior to the first rape.

"I love Satan" - Ramirez made Inez Erickson say this to him as he was raping her for the second time.

"I've killed 20 people, man. I love all that blood." - Bragging in jail.

"I love to kill people. I love watching them die. I would shoot them in the head and they would wiggle and squirm all over the place, and then just stop. Or I would cut them with a knife and watch their faces turn real white. I love all that blood. I told one lady to give me all her money. She said no. So I cut her and pulled her eyes out."
Told to Deputy Sheriff Jim Ellis.

"It's nothing you'd understand, but I do have something to say. In fact, I have a lot to say, but now is not the time or place. I don't know why I'm wasting my time or breath. But what the hell? As for what is said of my life, there have been lies in the past and there will be lies in the future. I don't believe in the hypocritical, moralistic dogma of this so-called civilized society. I need not look beyond this room to see all the liars, hater, the killers, the crooks, the paranoid cowards--truly trematodes of the Earth, each one in his own legal profession. You maggots make me sick-- hypocrites one and all. And no one knows that better than those who kill for policy, clandestinely or openly, as do the governments of the world, which kill in the name of God and country or for whatever reason they deem appropriate. I don't need to hear all of society's rationalizations, I've heard them all before and the fact remains that what is, is."

This questionnaire with Richard appeared in Answer Me! Issue 4:

Favourite Sports : Rugby, Football, Boxing
Favourite Music : Heavy Metal
Favourite Actress : Samantha Strong
Favourite Vacation Spot : URANUS
Favourite Food : Women's feet
Favourite Color : Red
Pastimes / Hobbies : Traveling and measuring coffins
Biggest Like : Cocaine
Biggest Dislike : Hypocrites, Authority
Make a Wish : To have my finger on a nuclear trigger device
What do you look for in a girl : Nice Ass, Good Legs
Perfect way to spend a date : Moonlit night drinking rum at a cemetary
Describe Yourself : Asshole - and proud of it
Motto : Live each day as if it's your last.
If you like a girl, how do you get a girl to notice you? : I pull out my gun
What's one thing you'd change about yourself? : Not a damn thing, except where I'm at.
How has your life changed as a result of your success? : Privacy is a thing of the past.
What's your message to your fans? : Keep your spirit strong.

The Wacky World of Murder

RAMIREZ, Richard Leyva

Los Angeles is the serial murder capital of the world. It takes a special "twist" to capture headlines in a city where, by autumn 1983, five random slayers were at large and killing independently of one another. In the summer months of 1985, reporters found their twist and filled front pages with accounts of the sinister "Night Stalker," a sadistic home invader with a preference for unlocked windows and a taste for savage mutilation. As the story broke, the Stalker had three weeks of freedom left, but he was bent on making every moment count, and he would claim a minimum of 16 lives before the bitter end.

Unrecognized, the terror had begun a fuil year earlier with the murder of a 79-year-old woman at her home in suburban Glassell Park in june 1984. Police lifted fingerprints from a window screen at the site, but without a suspect for comparison, the clue led them nowhere.

By February 1985, police had two more murders on their hands, but they were keeping details to themselves. They saw no link, at first, with the abduction of a six-year-old Montebello girl, snatched from a bus stop near her school and carried away in a laundry bag, sexually abused before she was dropped off in Silver Lake on February 25. Two weeks later, on March 1 1, a nineyear-old girl was kidnapped from her bedroom in Monterey Park, raped by her abductor, and dumped in Elysian Park.

The Night Stalker reverted from child molestation to murder on March 17, shooting 34-year-old Dayle Okazaki to death in her Rosemead condominium and wounding roommate Maria Hernandez before he fled. Hernandez provided police with their first description of a long-faced intruder, notable for his curly hair, bulging eyes, and wide-spaced, rotting teeth.

Another victim on March 17 was 30-year-old Tsa Lian Yu, ambushed near her home in Monterey Park, dragged from her car, and shot severas times by the attacker. She died the following day, and her killer celebrated his new score by abducting an Eagle Rock girl from her home on the night of March 20, sexually abusing her before he let her go.

The action moved to Whittier on March 27, with 64year-old Vincent Zazzara beaten to death in his home. Zazzaras wife, 44-year-old Maxine, was fatally stabbed in the same attack, her eyes carved out and carried from the scene by her assailant. The Zazzaras had been dead two days before their bodies were discovered on March 29, and homicide detectives launched a futile search for clues.

On May 14, 65-year-old William Do¡ was shot in the head by a man who invaded his home in Monterey Park. Dying, Do¡ staggered to the telephone and dialed an emergency number before he collapsed, thus saving his wife from a lethal assault by the Stalker. Two weeks later, on May 29, 84-year-old Mabel Bell and her invalid sister, 81-year-old Florence Lang, were savagely beaten in their Monrovia home. The attacker paused to ink satanic pentagrams on Bell's body, drawing more on the walls before he departed. Found by a gardener on june 2, Lang survived her injuries, but Mabel Bell died on july 15.

In the meantime, the Night Stalker seemed intent on running up his score. On june 27, 32-year-old Patty Higgins was killed in her home at Arcadia, her throat slashed, and 77-year-old Mary Cannon was slain in identical style less than two miles away on july 2. Five days later, 61-year-old joyce Nelson was beaten to death at her home in Monterey Park. The killer struck twice on july 20, first invading a Sun Valley home where he killed 32~year-old Chainarong Khovanath, beat and raped the dead mans wife, and battered their eight-year-old son before escaping with $30,000 worth of cash and jewelry. A short time later, 69-year-old Max Kneidlng and his wlfe Lela, 66, were shot to death in their Glendale home.

Police were still maintaining silence on the subject of their latest maniac at large, but they began to feel the heat on August 6 after 38-year-old Christopher Peterson and his wife Virginia, age 27, were wounded by gunshots in their Northridge home. Descriptions matched the Stalker, and he struck again on August 8, shooting 35-year-old Elyas Abowath dead in his Diamond Bar home and brutally beating the victim's wife. That night, authorities announced their manhunt for a killer linked to a half-dozen recent homicides, a toll that nearly tripled in the next three weeks with fresh assaults and a new evaluation of outstanding cases.

On August 17, the Night Stalker deserted his normal hunting ground, gunning down 66-year-old Peter Pan at his home in San Francisco. Pans wife was shot and beaten, but she managed to survive her wounds, identifying suspect sketches of the homicidas prowler.

By August 22, police had credited the Night Stalker with a total of 14 murders in California. Three weeks later, in Mission Viejo, he wounded 29-year-old Bill Carns with a shot to the head, then raped Carns's fiancée before escaping in a stolen car. The vehicle was recovered on August 28, complete with a cicar set of fingerprints belonging to Richard Ramirez, a 25-yearold drifter from Texas whose Los Angeles rap sheet included numerous arrests for traffic and drug violations. Acquaintances describes Ramirez as an ardent Satanist and longtime drug abuser, obsessed with the mock-satanic rock band ACIDC. According to reports, Ramirez had adopted one of the group's songs-"Night Prowler"-as his personal anthem, playing ¡t repeatedly, sometimes for hours on end.

An all-points bulletin was issued for Ramirez on August 30, his mug shots were broadcast on TV, and he was captured by civilians in East Los Angeles the following day, mobbed and beaten as he tried to steal a car. Police arrived in time to save his life, and by September 29, Ramirez was facing a total of 68 felony charges, including 14 counts of murder and 22 counts of sexual assault. One of the murder counts was dropped prior to trial, but eight new felonies-including two more rapes and one attempted murder-were added to the list in December 1985.

A sister of Ramirez told the press he wanted to plead guilty, a desire frustrated by his attorneys, but the suspect made no public display of repentance. Sporting a pentagram on the palm of one hand, Ramirez waved to photographers and shouted "Hail Satan! " during a preliminary court appearance. Back in jail, he told a fellow inmate, "I've killed twenty people, man. I love all that blood."

The Night Stalkers trial was another Los Angeles marathon. jury selection began on july 22, 1988, but ¡t was September 20, 1989, before jurors convicted him on 13 murder counts and 30 related felonies. Two weeks later, on October 4, the panel recommended execution for Ramirez, and he was formally sentenced to death on November 7, 1989. "You maggots make me sick," he told the court. "You don't understand me. 1 am beyond good and evil. 1 will be avenged. Lucifer dwells in us all." Outside the courtroom, he told reporters, "Big deal. Death always went with the territory. I'Il see you at Disneyland."

Subsequently shipped to San Francisco for trial in the Peter Pan slaying, Ramirez was besieged by female GROUPIES lining up to visit him in jail. The competition for his time, including brawls among his young admirers, so disrupted jailhouse routines that Ramirez was moved to San Quentin in September 1993, awaiting his trial on death row. Upon admission to "Q," Ramirez was found to have a metal canister hidden in his rectum containing a key and a needle and syringe. In june 1995, the San Francisco prosecution was postponed indefinitely, pending an appellate ruling on his prior conviction, expected sometime in the next millennium.

Michael Newton - An Encyclopedia of Modern Serial Killers - Hunting Humans

"Night Stalker" Richard Ramirez: From the Bowels of Hell

by Joseph Geringer

Crescendo of Terror

Late in the 20th Century, Hell glutted on humanity. Its first bloodletting of that season of the Devil occurred on the warm evening of June 28, 1984, when an earth-bound Lucifer found his way into the small Glassel Park apartment of 79-year-old Jennie Vincow. Throughout the Los Angeles area a damp humidity had oppressed the air that day, and when the evening came and the temperature slightly cooled, Jennie left her window open to invite what little breeze there might be into her flat. Like a fallen leaf, decayed and tossed from its source, a fallen angel, dark, angry and also decaying, blew across the sill of that open window. When the demon departed through that same window, he left behind Jennie Vincow, raped, beaten and nearly decapitated.

"Her body was found by her son, who lived above her ground-floor apartment, just south of...Forest Lawn Park," reports the Los Angeles Times. "Her throat had been slashed and she had been stabbed repeatedly."

The police were baffled. But, in the months to come, they were to encounter a madman whose lust for killing and depravity equaled, if not surpassed, that of Jack the Ripper or, more contemporary, the Hillside Strangler. Soon to be named the "Night Stalker" by the press, this madman bore, according to true crime author Richard L. Linedecker, "the horror in his soul of a Stephen King or a Clive Barker fright novel - and more." A Freddy Kruger. For real.

Less than a year later, the monster reappeared. This time, he waited in the shadows of an upscale condominium outside LA. The date was March 17, 1985, time 11:30 p.m., when pretty-faced Maria Hernandez pulled her auto into the security garage, unaware the monster was watching her from behind a pillar. When she alighted from her car, the killer stepped from the darkness, gun upraised and, despite her pleadings, he pressed the trigger. She stumbled. And the killer, thinking she was dead, stepped over her to enter the side door of the condo. But, Maria had been lucky - very lucky - for the bullet had deflected off the car keys she held in her hand, causing a hand wound, but nothing more.

Inside the building, Maria's roommate was less fortunate. For, when Maria finally made her way to the safety of her place, breathless, she discovered that her friend, Dayle Okazaki, had also encountered the killer. And this time, his bullet had found its mark. Thirty-three-year-old Okazaki lay in a pool of her own blood, her skull smashed by a missile fired at extremely close range.

The demon vanished just as quickly as he had appeared. The police were stumped.

All they knew of him was what Hernandez was able to tell them: He was tall, gaunt, dark, maybe Hispanic.

This time, the killer didn't wait nearly a year to murder again. He struck within the hour. His next victim that same evening was petite Taiwanese-born Tsai-Lian Yu, who, driving her yellow Chevrolet down North Alhambra Avenue in nearby Monterey Park, withered when someone with the eyes of a madman forced his way into her car and shot her. He had thrown his own car into idle, simply entered hers, pushed her onto the pavement, called her bitch, then blew her into eternity at point-blank range.

Fast. Neat. Clean.

Then dematerialized into the darkness from whence he came.

Child's play.

The police were beginning to realize they might have a problem on their hands, but they remained stumped. Eyewitnesses who thought they had seen the killer described him as tall, gaunt, dark, maybe Hispanic.

Ten days later, this elusive phantom -- whose physical description could fit any one of thousands of males in the Greater Los Angeles area -- required more blood. This time, shooting his prey didn't quite satisfy the urge; the demon must have been hungry, he must have been frantic, for when he entered the home of the sleeping Zazzara couple, he produced a bloodbath.

The couple's bodies were discovered by their son the following morning. Vincent Zazzara had been shot in the head as he dozed on the sofa. He had died quickly -- unlike his wife who suffered the percussion of the killer's frenzy. On her face he had carved the embodiment of his hate, molding her physicality into something representative of how he viewed humankind - as something made to splice and cut and gouge, to bend, to twist, to reshape to suit his own wantonness.

Clifford L. Linedecker, in his well-researched Night Stalker, describes what the police found at the crime scene: "They (the police) would never forget the sight of Maxine Zazzara's mutilated face. Her eyes were gouged out, and the empty sockets were ringed with blackened gobs of blood and tissue...The killer had plunged a knife through her left breast, leaving a large, ragged T-shaped wound. There were other cruel injuries to her neck, face, abdomen, and around the pubic area. She had been butchered..."

Investigators found footprints - visible signs of a tennis shoe -- in the service area and in the flowerbed - indicating his means of entry into the Zazzara home. There were no witnesses this time around, but a modus operandi was becoming loosely apparent. Nevertheless stumped, the law determined to put an end to this savage that had crawled up from the mud up and within their midst. That they believed this latest crime to have been committed by the same creature that had slain Vincow, Okazaki and Yu was, at this point, not much more than a hunch. But, if they were correct, the madman was becoming bolder and more sanguine; an inner lust seemed to be growing and, now fed and apparently well fed, who knows what would come next! Scouring the neighborhoods where he had already struck, blue uniforms questioned strangers, stopped midnight strollers, clambered for witnesses. But, there proved little to go on.

Deep inside, the police feared, he -It! - would strike again.

Tension of the wait was short. Elderly Harold and Jean Wu did not hear the intruder slipping into their residence through a window at pre-dawn, May 14. The first intimation Mrs. Wu had of his presence was the loud bang that stirred her awake. She woke to find the figure, smoking gun in hand, standing over her. Beside her, husband Harold groaned, shot in the head. Then - the killer's huge fists unloosened on the woman. He pummeled her, slapped her, kicked her, and demanded that she turn over loose cash to him. Binding her hands together behind her with thumbscrews, he tossed her across her bed over her dying spouse, then rampaged through the home's drawers and cabinets for money. Terrified, lying on her mattress, Jean Wu could hear three things - Harold's furtive gasps for life, furniture being invaded, and the madman's curses as he found nothing of great value.

Having rampaged through their belongings, the tall, thin, dark man returned to the Wu's bedroom and, as she lay across her fading husband, violently raped the 63-year-old woman. Satisfied, he zippered up, grinning. Then left. Another trophy his.

Mrs. Wu, after recovering from shock, told police her attacker was tall, gaunt, dark, Hispanic.

The symphony of terror played on, its next discordant notes sounded in the dark hours before May 30, at the home of attractive 41-year-old Ruth Wilson. The woman awoke in her bed to the blinding beam of a flashlight and the distinct silhouette of a pistol barrel across her gaze; behind the illumination a gruff voice demanded, "Where's your money?" Before she could muster words, the intruder yanked her by the sleeve of her negligee off her bed and led her to her 12-year-old son's room down the hall. Using the frightened boy as bait, he insisted that she produce something of value. She told him where an expensive piece of jewelry was hidden. He seemed satisfied as he studied the diamond necklace in his hands, and Wilson figured he would abscond without harming her or her boy.

She was wrong.

Locking her son in a closet, he took his pent-up emotions out on the woman in the pink negligee who stood before him. Shoving her back to her own bedroom, he tore her gown off her and, despite her protestations, had his way with her. First he bound her hands behind her with a pair of pantyhose, then fell upon her. As he raped and sodomized her, his foul breath and body odor overcame and sickened her, adding to the humiliation.

Miraculously, he let her live. He was gone...all but in her night dreams that would haunt her over and over and over for months to come.

When the police later interviewed her, she gave her description of the devil:

He was tall, gaunt, dark, definitely Hispanic.


Stalking with Satan

Police composites had been produced of the killer, compiled from descriptions from those few who lived to tell of their attack and from witnesses who had seen the shooting of Tsai-Lian Yu on Alhambra Avenue. With minor variations, the suspect was of Hispanic descent, about 25 to 30 years old, wore long, unkempt black hair that hung in greasy strands over a high forehead and which straggled down across a skeletally thin, pock-marked face; cheekbones were sunken, lips thick, chin square. According to Ruth Wilson, his teeth were jagged and rotten. The description wasn't a pretty one, and it fit the face of the monster he was. Each testimony had him dressed in all-black.

Squads continued to roll throughout the city and accompanying suburbs; policemen watched steadfastly night and day for anyone even closely fitting that description - but didn't find their man. And, in the meantime, his crimes continued without a sign of let-up, his ferocity building.

The nature of the next attack, which occurred on June 1, the day after the assault on Wilson, added another and an alarmingly new perspective to the suspect. He suddenly took on the role of a Satanist and his deeds as sacrificial rituals to the Lord Master of Evil. It would be his most aggressive and horrific action to date.

Retired schoolteacher Malvia Keller and invalid sister Blanche Wolfe, 83- and 79-years old respectively, were viciously beaten in their small house in suburban Monrovia, off one of the central state freeways. When found by their gardener the following morning, both elderly women had been beaten across the head with a hammer. Wolfe lay near the point of death, oozing blood from a head wound; she had been raped. Keller, who had succumbed, had had her legs and arms bound and had been crushed by a heavy table which the killer had turned over across her ribs.

"Police found a pentagram - an encircled five-pointed star often linked to Satanic worship drawn in lipstick on Malvia Keller's thigh," writes Clifford L. Linedecker in his Night Stalker. "Another pentagram had been crudely scrawled in lipstick on the bedroom wall where Blanche Wolfe lay in a comatose state. The tip of the pentagram was inverted, pointing down, an indication of evil. Of Satan."

This indication of devil-worship was no surprise to Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block who had, for some time, suspected the crimes to be of that origin. A black baseball-style cap bearing the emblem of the hard-rock group AC/DC found at the scene of Dayle Okazaki's murder had given him that impression. That music group was known for having produced some lyrics with cultist overtones.

Reads the Los Angeles Times, "Authorities focused on AC/DC's 1979 Highway to Hell album and its six-minute 'Night Prowler' cut, which says, in part, 'What's the noise outside your window? What's the shadow on the blind? As you lay there naked like a body in a tomb, suspended animation as I slip into your room.'"

Block had seen enough murder in his years as a police officer to recognize the differences between homicides of various degrees - drug-related, love-triangle, cultist, and so on. This string of killings was the most bizarre in his years of law enforcement experience. Dispiritedly, all he and his men had to go on at this stage of the game was a generic description of the assailant and the flimsy roots of motive. The devil's own remained elusive, and that's all that mattered, unfortunately. It had now become apparent that, like a vampire of folklore, the demon had grown and was growing stronger by the moment, more degenerate with every sip of blood.

Over the next six weeks, the Los Angeles area would endure a series of killings so brutal that the city was thrown into a panic that took on the appearance of a cataclysm. Many sleepless nights were had by citizens, especially by women who lived alone. No lock was sufficient in the minds of the frightened public. No door bolt thick enough. No window latch secure enough.

Because the killer's victims ranged all ages, no one, man or woman, child or spinster, felt safe. Some of his victims were of Oriental culture, others were Caucasian, and the city wondered: Who the hell next? Some writers claimed that the killer, who by all eyewitness testimony was believed to be Hispanic, had not picked on his own -- yet they forgot Maria Hernandez whose key ring had saved her life on a mid-March morning. The killer had not exhibited a rabid preference for any particular culture, age group, sex or even geographic area (his killings spanned a forty mile range encircling Greater LA). He was, as Linedecker observes, "an equal opportunity killer".

His modus operandi remained consistent and his motives inexplicable. His break-ins, while well-orchestrated, even ritualistic, had, at the same time, earmarks of sexual spontaneity -- as if a single spark of impure thought caused havoc so hot in his brain that, to ease the torture, he needed to torture others.

Between June 1 (immediately following the Monrovia affair) and mid-August, 1985, nine more bloody rampages were attributed to what the newspapers were calling, for lack of a better name, the "Valley Intruder". The toll of his victims included:

* Patty Higgins, 32 years old, Arcadia. (June 27) Killed in her home, her throat slashed.

* Mary Louise Cannon, 75 years old, Arcadia. (July 2) Found in her home, beaten, throat slashed.

* Diedre Palmer, 16 years old, Arcadia. (July 5) Beaten at home with a tire iron. Survived.

* Joyce Lucille Nelson, 61 years old, Monterey Park (July 7) Bludgeoned to death and mutilated in her house.

* Linda Fortuna, 63 years old, Monterey Park (also July 7) Survived rape and sodomy attempts when attacker could not get an erection; he robbed her home and, fortunately, let her live.

* Maxson and Lela Kneiding, husband and wife, 66 and 64 years old respectively, Glendale (July 20) Shot in their beds while they slept; mutilated after death. Maxson's head was nearly decapitated.

* Assawahem Family, Sun Valley (also July 20) Husband Chitat (32 years old) shot in bed at point-blank range, his 29-year-old wife Sakima dragged from bed, beaten, twice raped and made to perform oral sex. While bound, Sakima was forced to listen as killer slapped her eight-year-old son in his bed. Afterwards, intruder departed with family cash.

* Christopher and Virginia Petersen, husband and wife, 38 and 27 years old respectively, Northridge (August 5) Both shot in head while they were in bed; both somehow survived despite a bullet that penetrated a section of Christopher's brain and another that blew away Virginia's face.

* Ahmed and Suu Kya Zia, husband and wife, 35 and 28 years old respectively, Diamond Bar (August 8) Ahmed shot in the temple and killed in the couple's bed; wife Suu handcuffed, slapped, punched, raped, and forced to perform fellatio on intruder. She survived.

*****

Horrified columnists had been referring to the mystery murderer in a number of ways; nicknames abounded, all of them colorful, the "Valley Intruder" and the "Walk-In Killer" enjoying the longest run. But, it was not until the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner started calling him the "Night Stalker" that the city had found his true idiom. The moniker, simple and sharp - like a knife - stabbed the bull's eye. It frightened, and it numbed. And the name stuck. Like a lump in the throat.

It penetrated like a shiv in the guts of those who heard it, especially those who lived in the communities where the Stalker stalked.

Los Angeles was terrified.


Police Pressure

In Los Angeles County, both the county and municipal police were anything but idle. They recognized and admitted to the enormity of the problem they had as long as the Night Stalker was free to roam. No one was safe - but how, they wondered, leash a mad dog that seems to be invisible?

More than any other lawman, Detective Sergeant Frank Salerno of the county department's homicide squad was the man most apropos to answering that riddle. He knew how tricky the mind of a homicidal maniac could be to box and tag, having played a large role in tracking down LA's Hillside Stranger a decade earlier. He was, for that matter, the first to sense that the valley had another serial killer on the loose.

In June, 1985, not long after the killings began, Salerno took it upon himself to list similarities in the up-to-then six murders in suburban Los Angeles. Certain things matched. Collected fingerprints, recovered cartridge shells (.22 caliber) and even a distinct method of breaking and entry - all the same. Imprints of the same design tennis shoe (identified as Reebok high-tops, size 11) told a startling tale. But, more revealing still, the description of the killer himself was nearly identical in each case where a living person had been left to talk: tall, gaunt, dark, Hispanic, in his late 20s/early 30s. Downright ugly.

And now signs of devil worship were surfacing in many of the killings. Apart from the pentagrams discovered at Malvia Keller's house, the murderer had, according to survivors such as Ruth Wilson, demanded that they mouth such phrases such as "I vow to Satan" or "I love Satan" or he would kill them. Nor had Salerno forgotten the baseball cap with the rock group AC/DC's emblem, found after the Okazaki murder. He recalled that one of the band's songs hinted at Satanism.

He took this evidence to his superior, Captain Robert Grimm, who was impressed. From Grimm, Salerno sought, and gained, permission to check with the LA city forces to compare notes. Perhaps, he thought, they had been encountering like cases, unsolved, which might compare to the elusive killer's track record.

"Grimm recognized the wisdom in Salerno's suggestion to check with LAPD," reports Clifford L. Linedecker in Night Stalker. "No one wanted a situation similar to the Hillside Strangler case, when both the LAPD and the Los Angeles sheriff's deputies worked their investigations alone and independent of each other. The result for the police agencies had been missed opportunities, confusion and embarrassment."

Salerno and Grimm envisioned a task force comprised of the top police investigators throughout the county and the city of Los Angeles. After discussion with the LAPD, the latter decided that it would invest in its own separate task force but promised to work around-the-clock and closely with Salerno, who had already been given a squad of detectives dedicated to finding the Night Stalker. While separate entities, both investigative teams operated, as committed, as one, feeding information back and forth and partnering in any activities to maintain a single direction.

Salerno, in the meantime, conferred with two of his top men who had directed the investigative efforts in two of the Stalker's previous crimes. They proved invaluable in formatting the investigative team and in keeping its work strategic.

Detective Gil Carillo had been one of the first plainclothesmen introduced to the Night Stalker's handiwork when he was assigned to the Okazaki shooting. Besides being familiar with the history of this latest serial killer, Salerno called on Carillo's intrinsic knowledge of computers, a technical expertise Salerno lacked, to create a database for incoming and outgoing information.

On the other hand, Detective Russell Uloth helped Salerno determine the kind of psychopath they were dealing with. His study of the Zazzara butchery showed that the mutilations ravaged on Mrs. Zazzara were done after she was dead. The gouging out of the eyes - the eyes that the killer evidently took with him - was enacted as a sort of Satanic cult act.

But, while his formidable adversaries were seeding the roots of war against him, the Night Stalker managed to slip by them in the cover of darkness to commit the murders of Higgins, Cannon, Nelson, Kneiding and Assawahem.

This series of tragedies necessitated that, by early August, the task force more directly include the suburban law enforcement agencies around Los Angeles where the devil continued to hunt. With a manpower of 200 investigators, it was the largest operation of its kind ever created. Beside the full-time force, Salerno called in subject experts from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's criminal-profiling unit who presented their views of known types of serial killers, then narrowed the types to which the Night Stalker came closest. Not leaving a stone unturned, the task force even consulted personalities with knowledge on devil worship and cultist torture rituals.

Investigators, following the Satan cult theory, fell on places where such groups assembled. They questioned followers of these leagues about their membership, hoping that they might uncover the identity of the killer in their company. While they could not uncover a suspect, they did find something very interesting on the floor of an East Los Angeles cult hall. They found a shoe print that matched the imprint of the Reebok tennis shoes - size 11 -- located at many of the murder scenes.

Salerno wanted the killer to feel the heat, to panic and blunder into the open through his own hysteria. The detective had seen it happen many times; criminals, feeling the pressure, leap before looking and announce their guilt hands-up by doing something stupid. To meet this end, he made sure that the task force started feeding the media pieces of evidence they uncovered, large and small, even unfounded information, to give the killer the impression they were closing in.

Simultaneous to the big squeeze -- in August -- the task force announced its formation at a press conference, keynoted by representatives from the County Sheriff's office. At the conference, which was heavily attended by an anxious press, the speakers officially confirmed the existence of a dangerous serial killer wandering at will in the Los Angeles valley.

"We are concerned there is an individual who is responsible for more than one murder, multiple murders," admitted Robert A. Edmonds, Los Angeles County assistant sheriff.

County Sheriff Sherman Block assured the public, however, that all surrounding police agencies were combing the streets to end the spree. Authorities asked for the public to keep calm, to keep doors locked, and to report any suspicious activities or persons in their neighborhoods as soon as they manifested.

The press conference kicked off a campaign to make the public more aware of - and to make it more active in the apprehension of - the Night Stalker. Salerno's task force distributed flyers, leaflets and wanted posters bearing the composite sketch of the killer. Posters soon hung in every visible passage in every public byway and thoroughfare and market within and around Los Angeles. A citizen couldn't take a stroll to the corner store or drive their kids to school without coming face to face with the large sketched ugly face of the Night Stalker.

And things began to pop. Telephone calls from men and women, some calling anonymously, poured in; faceless voices and unsigned letters of concern led police to strange goings-on in their neighborhood or to oddball neighborhood characters who fit the Night Stalker's description. Not a lead was overlooked. Transients, vagrants and vagabonds were questioned, as were those "oddball neighborhood characters".

Terror that had gripped the people of Los Angeles had now, prompted by the police, turned to obstinacy. The populace transformed from a group of frightened individuals into a committee of daring hunters, begging for their chance to catch the night-time ghoul. If he wanted to prey on them, well, they cried, let him prey - because now they were waiting. The family man and the businessman and the housewife - they had bought guns, and loaded them. Or they had as their weapons shovels, or pickaxes, or kitchen knives, or any one of dozens of homemade utensils pointing their way to a night stalker's heart.

Suddenly, the Night Stalker realized that things had changed. He found their lights burning at night, a silhouette in the window. Suddenly he found apartment buildings with hired guards pacing the lobby. Suddenly he found citizens' committees strolling roundabout and in and out in the alleys, the parks, the streets. Suddenly he found their windows nailed shut, porch lights left on, back yards illumined by safety beams. Suddenly he found defiance.

The civic forces, too, were out in droves. Patrol cars were everywhere, marked and unmarked vehicles. Townsfolk volunteers had been deputized, as well, to drive in the dark, licensed to throw their search beams at anything that moved or crept or crawled - and if it resembled the Night Stalker, to step on it.

The devil, the ghost, the ghoul, the phantom, the stalker. It was time for him to leave Los Angeles.

He shrugged. After all, no matter. He would go elsewhere. He could kill anywhere.


Richard Ramirez

As the sun descended over San Francisco on the evening of August 17, 1985, a beat-up brownish-red 1978 Pontiac Grand Prix pulled off Highway 80 and began to cruise the adjacent suburbs that bordered it. Within the next couple of hours, the car found its way into the upper-scale neighborhood of Lake Merced. It was well after dark, the time of evil. Parking his car in the darkest spot he could find, the Night Stalker emerged and, checking for the .22 calibre handgun in his belt, headed to one particular two-story home where, he felt, the devil was directing him.

Tall, gaunt, dark, ugly 25-year-old Richard Ramirez paused. He turned to look back at the Pontiac he had been driving these last few weeks. He ruminated a moment, and decided after tonight he'd better play it safe and ditch this auto. It was time to steal another one, perhaps before the sun rose. But - first things first - he drew the revolver - so tight, so hard, so metallic in the moonlight - and strolled nonchalantly to the unlit gangway beside the home of elderly Chinese couple, Mr. & Mrs. Pan.

Houses like these were so easy to penetrate, Ramirez knew...windows low to the ground, removable screens...a snap, a slight push, and he was in. Of course, Satan was guiding his every move, he knew that! Why fret about getting caught? All these homes, all these homes, and yet not once had the resident heard him entering. The devil silenced their ears while they slept. And he, Richard Ramirez, then took it a step further: He silenced them, forever. More blood to feed Hell, to keep its furnaces burning.

Inside the house, Ramirez looked at his watch: Midnight. A good time to kill. He checked his weapon once more - yes, cylinder loaded. These homes were all laid out pretty much the same; he knew where the bedrooms were by instinct. Without pause, he walked to where the couple slept, found them snoring, and pulled the trigger. He loved the way their bodies jerked upon impact.

His senses tingled...watching them rattle in death, hearing their throats beg for air, watching as their pillows darkened with life's liquid underneath what was left of their skulls. But, there was no time to admire his latest artwork; there was much more work to do here before he left. Time now for a little home decorating - so that the police would know that the Night Stalker was far, far from trapped.

*****

When the Pans' son visited his parents the next morning, he walked into the aftermath of doomsday. His father was dead in bed, his mother next to him, seriously injured. The walls of the home were etched with lipstick diagrams of devil worship, cursing and alien messages such as "Jack the Knife." Drawers were ransacked. A side window had been pried open and dirty footprints, bearing a Reebok design, trailed hastily from the windowsill across the carpet, in and out of the parents' bedroom.

Mrs. Alberta Pan survived, but remained an invalid; her husband Peter was pronounced dead at General Hospital.

San Francisco police knew immediately that the Horror of Los Angeles, the Night Stalker, had come to their city. Certainly, the modus operandi bore his logo: breaking and entry, the assassination of the male first where a couple was involved, and the cultist signatures left on the scene.

Bullets retrieved from the victims, when matched with those in the possession of the Los Angeles task force, confirmed it. So did the shoe prints. Comparing notes with Detective Salerno, San Francisco homicide detective Frank Kowalski also learned that a brown 1978 Pontiac, which had been reported prowling the streets of Lake Merced the night of the Pan killing, matched the description of an auto seen in the vicinity of the most recent murders in the LA area. Undoubtedly, the same car, the same maniac.

Authorities began wondering if the same man who perhaps traveled between LA and San Francisco might have committed four other recent unsolved homicides in San Francisco. In retrospect, they now seemed to have been.

"On February 1, police discovered the mutilated bodies of Christina Caldwell, 58, and her sister, Mary, 70. They were stabbed dozens of times," reports the San Francisco Chronicle. "A coroner's report said a window of their ransacked flat was left open. Bloody fingerprints, palm prints and shoe prints were left behind, although (Detective) Kowalski said most of the prints turned out to be those of neighbors.

"Another slaying being checked is that of Masataka Kobayaki, 45, part owner and chef of Masa's, a fashionable restaurant on Nob Hill," the Chronicle continues. "The fourth murder involved Edward F. Wildgans, 29, who was shot June 2 through the right temple by a late-night intruder. He died two days later. His girlfriend fought off the attacker (but was raped)."

After interviewing the girlfriend, Nancy Brien, her description of her tormentor coincided with the image of the Night Stalker.

Without delay, law enforcers in the City by the Bay disseminated wanted posters and leaflets. "The whole department has been mobilized to apprehend the suspect," promised Richard Klapp, police commissioner. Patrols were doubled at night, particularly in Hispanic neighborhoods where one of that nationality might easily blend in. According to the Los Angeles Times, investigators quickly learned that a male resembling the Night Stalker had stayed at the Bristol, a transient hotel at 56 Mason Street, during the week of the Pan murder. Manager Alex Melnikov remembered the lodger as dressing in all black and reeking of body odor. The stranger had signed out the afternoon of the said crime. Melnikov, said the paper, "had found an inverted five-pointed star, known as a pentagram, inscribed on the door of a room adjacent to one occupied by (the boarder)... A similar star was found in the Pans' home."

*****

Richard Ramirez had abandoned the Pontiac; and he had abandoned San Francisco. In haste. He chuckled, huddled behind the wheel of a stolen 1976 orange Toyota, thinking about why he had to make a quick departure: How that mayor of San Francisco - what's her name? Dianne Feinstein - mouthed off to those news station people about the police feeling like they were closing in on the Night Stalker; then how that county sheriff had a fit because she had screwed up the whole dragnet! Locos! Crazy people they! Now, turning the Toyota's grille off the Golden State Freeway towards the entrance to the community known as Mission Viejo, he determined to show them locos just who is the smartest one! The devil protected him! But, they had no one! Tonight, someone would die - not in San Francisco as the police suspected - but here in this rich-boy community so near to Los Angeles!

The date was August 25, just after midnight.

William Carns and his fiancée Renata Gunther dreamed well tonight in the home on Chrisanta Drive. Parking his car in shadow, Ramirez entered their fine stucco home and sought out the bedroom to see who slept there. He smiled when he saw the couple sound asleep. Both looked young, in their late twenties, and the beautiful Renata tingled his senses. Beauty for the sacrificial altar! For Lucifer! Out came his revolver, the .22, and he flashed its barrel toward the cranium of the male. Carns twitched, and gagged.

Renata awoke to the dark, skinny, grinning Ramirez who leaned over her, panting, calling her bitch, shaking her and laughing in her face. His breath stank, his teeth - she could see them in the umbrage-were crooked and stained. His eyes blazed.

Forcing her from her bed, he threw himself over her and raped her. Snarling in her face, he promised to shoot her unless she "Swear to Satan". Begging for her life, she did as he asked. But, before he released her from his grasp, he thrust her head to where he unzipped his trousers. Having performed, he left her alive, but in pain and nauseated.

He had repaired back into the darkness from whence he came.

*****

A middle-aged woman named Donna Myers and her friend, Serafin Arredondo, who lived in the El Sobrante district of San Francisco had come forth in the meantime with a fascinating tale. Myers, who let out her home occasionally as a boarding house, had from time to time rented a room to a man she knew only as "Ricky". She told police he was tall, gaunt, Hispanic and, in a word, strange. What's more, he closely resembled the police sketch of the Night Stalker that appeared in the Chronicle. Ricky was from El Paso, Texas, she explained, and traveled throughout California -- mostly between San Francisco and Los Angeles. To her he often addressed his interest in the black arts.

She related that one day, during a recent stay, she happened to come into her TV room when Ricky was viewing a news report about a Night Stalker victim. He seemed greatly interested in the program. Noticing her behind him, Ricky suddenly turned to her from his chair, grinned with a mouthful of crooked teeth, and whispered, "Now wouldn't you be surprised if I turned out to be the Stalker?" She thought at the time it was just a sick bit of whimsy, until she noticed the composite in the newspaper shortly thereafter. The memory chilled her.

Arredondo, a friend of the Myers family who often visited the woman, displayed some men's jewelry - a diamond ring and cufflinks -- he had bought from this Ricky one afternoon not long ago. Ricky had claimed he was strapped for cash and was selling these items at a discount; he gave Arredondo a good deal. Since then, the buyer had read that the Night Stalker was known for robbing his victims as well as slaying them, and wondered if...well, just maybe...

The police nodded; they understood completely. Taking the goods that Arredondo offered, they in turn handed them over to the investigative team for possible identification. That evening, the ring and links were labeled as stolen property that once belonged to one of the killer's male victims.

Never knowing when this Ricky might turn up at Myers' doorstep, plainclothesmen began surveillance on her home night and day.

A rhythm of lucky breaks was in full tempo. While this was occurring in the Bay area, eyewitnesses in the Mission Viejo neighborhood near LA had reported seeing an orange, older make of Toyota prowling their streets immediately prior to the attack on Carns and Gunther. On April 27, the book Night Stalker tells us, "the orange Toyota station wagon was found in a parking lot in the Rampart area of Los Angeles. Detectives watched the car for almost twenty-four hours before deciding it had indeed been abandoned and the Stalker was not going to return for it."

But, the discovery of the auto would prove fruitful. Dusting the car for fingerprints, city investigators delivered the prints to the Orange County Sheriff's Office whose forensic laboratory was testing a brand new Department of Justice-created system for tracking prints in record time.

The prints matched those of a small-time thief and miscreant from Texas named Ricardo Ramirez.

Lauded the Los Angeles Times, "(The system picked) Ramirez's fingerprints out of 380,000 other sets, only three minutes after the system was fed a partial print lifted from (the Toyota)...The need to capture the Night Stalker was so urgent that the installation of the new 'Cal-ID' computer system, which is still in progress, was interrupted so the system could be reprogrammed to search for the Night Stalker's prints."

The police had a name. Now they needed to research the suspect, to find out more about him. And, most importantly, they needed to find him before he slew again.

*****

Ricardo Ramirez was born in the barrio (Hispanic section) of El Paso, Texas, on February 28, 1960. His childhood was one of poverty and of hanging with youth gangs. Parents Julian (an illegal alien who worked in the rail yard) and Mercedes had, in all, seven children; Ricardo - who later Americanized the name to Richard - was the youngest. Roman Catholics, Mercedes tried as best she could to lead her familia onto a straight and God-like path. She succeeded with six of her brood. But, Ricardo went astray.

Grade school teachers claimed he could have been a good pupil, had he proffered a little interest. He failed ninth grade twice, spending more time in the video arcades than at school. At an early age, he took to breaking into homes. Police caught him in the act of burglary several times, each time being shipped off to a work program - until the oft-time loser was sentenced in his youth to a disciplinarian hall.

He had but three interests in junior high - and cared about little else - martial arts, marijuana and heavy metal. "He loved Black Sabbath and Judas Priest," remarks a friend from his teen years.

Another interest grew from, say boyhood friends, the sort of music he listened to - that which glorified cultist practices. He seemed preoccupied with Satanism and stories about black magic, demons and dragons. While his mother sent him to Bible studies, hoping he'd learn the Christian ways of life, Richard took the lessons to heart - but learned them in reverse. That is, after class he would go to the library and read up on Satan and the fallen angels, the characters that his teachers merely skipped over while exemplifying Jesus Christ and the twelve apostles.

Richard, in his teens, had been suspected of thievery, but the police could not prove their accusations. His first formal arrest as an adult was for possession of marijuana. Slapped with a small fine, he was then hit with another when pinched months later for the same offense. On his third arrest -- for reckless driving (a friend's car) - he avoided prison by agreeing to do neighborhood youth work while on three years' probation.

At 20 years old, his probation ended, Richard Ramirez left El Paso.

Between the time he departed his native Texas and the time he took up killing innocent people, Richard Ramirez encountered minor run-ins with the law. In 1984, he was taken into custody and photographed while suspected of driving a stolen car, a charge that came to nothing.

"Ramirez is known to have gone by several aliases," accounts a retrospective article in the Los Angeles Times, "including Richard Moreno, Noah Jimenez, Nicolaus Adame, Richard Munoz and Richard Mona." But, in all, aside from simple infractions, he did little more than waste away slowly in the drug and booze bars of southern California - wearing black, always black -- salivating over Satan and freaking out on the flimsy, filmy veils of burning dragon weed.


Citizen's Arrest

No matter how evil, no matter how hideous, all things can be destroyed. Caliban shrinks from his own reflection; Prometheus scalds from the fire he created; warlocks recoil from the Druid stone; werewolves perish with a silver bullet; and vampires whither under sunlight. Richard Ramirez, closest to the latter, should have known better than to step out from under the blood-moon into the broad daylight. He was a creature of the night. But, the shadows would no longer hide him.

On the bright morning of Saturday, August 31, 1985, Ramirez stepped from a Greyhound bus that had just pulled into the Los Angeles depot from Phoenix, Arizona. He had gone there immediately following the Carns killing to buy cocaine from a seller he knew there. Still somewhat depleted from its effects, he returned to LA, the scene of his crimes - probably already scheming his next foray into depravity. He did not know that the police in the meantime had learned his identity nor that his face and name appeared for the first time in print in that morning's newspapers across the nation. He strutted past the depot's newsstand, oblivious to his own black and white visage scowling into the world, and grabbed a rapid transit to the East Side barrio.

"The man suspected of (so many) atrocities was first spotted clad in black jeans and a Jack Daniel's T-shirt at about 8:30 a.m. Saturday when he entered a small liquor store at 819 S. Towne Avenue and picked up a newspaper that had his picture on the first page," the Los Angeles Times relates. According to the store clerk, Ramirez, who was waiting for the cashier to ring up his purchase of whisky, panicked when he realized what he was looking at. He threw the paper down and hotfooted from the store. Citizens in the market had already recognized him and pursued him. They yelled out, "Stop, killer! Halt, el matador!"

Weaving through the Spanish-speaking neighborhood that he knew so well, but which had suddenly turned so foreboding, he made his way circuitously corner after corner to the 800 block of Mott Street. It was the beginning of the Labor Day weekend and residents were out this sunny morning; streets and porches brimmed with early risers, with strollers and shoppers on their way to shopping, and dog-walkers being yanked by their pets to the nearest fire hydrant. All their heads turned in his direction; there seemed to be a neon sign above him, directing their attention to the gaunt, ugly, pock-marked face they had just seen over their cup of java at the breakfast table. And they cried again, "El matador! It's him, the killing one! The killing machine!" When he ran, several of them waved down a passing police car and pointed out the direction of the Night Stalker's flight. When other residents phoned in a few moments later, claiming to have seen the fugitive a few blocks away, at Euclid and Garnet, seven squads were dispatched to the scene. Street after street, the squads fanned out, following residents' leads along a zigzag course.

One, maybe even two or three people might be wrong, the police ascertained, but not an entire neighborhood. The cops knew they had their man, and, he was turned in by his own people.

It was Ramirez's turn to live a nightmare. Finally. About him, the brownstone and slat board walls of the barrio were closing in, so tight that the lack of space squeezed his chest to take his breath away. Under the dirty Jack Daniel's logo he wore on his chest, his heart hammered his bones, and it ached like the devil that had deserted him. No escape from the world now, no escape from this bad dream. He had manufactured this mania, after all, in the night, and in the day it came back to, at last, haunt the hell out of him. Pointing fingers and jeers and twisted faces and taunts and open palms blocked his every move; detours led to other detours; the place he had for so long used to blend in had broken lose, overused and indignant. He had shamed his own people and they were hurling him through a gamut. Police sirens screamed from everywhere, and Richard Ramirez began to sob. His world came tumbling down, blurred in tears and perspiration.

He paused briefly at one woman's screen door. "Por favor, help me!" he implored. She saw the mob of neighbors assembling below her stoop, pointing at the hombre estupido. "Your him!" she shrieked, and slammed the inner door shut in his face.

"Desperate and near exhaustion, Night Stalker Richard Ramirez made a wrong turn when he dashed onto Hubbard Street - unknowingly he had stumbled into a neighborhood of heroes," the Los Angeles Times continues. "Four citizens grabbed and subdued the suspected murderer after a 20-second footrace, one of them pounding at him with a steel rod.

"The heroes who captured Ramirez were Manuel De La Torre, 32, and three of his neighbors across the street, Jose Burgoin, 55, and his sons Jaime, 21, and Julio, 17. Another hero was Faustino Pinon, 56, next-door neighbor of the Burgoins, who had fought off Ramirez when he tried to steal his daughter's car."

By the time the first squad arrived screeching onto the scene, the Burgoin boys had the Night Stalker pinned to the curb; what fight remained in him was subdued with both boy's fists and the steel whip; he was bleeding from the whelps. The man who had killed, maimed and raped without mercy whimpered now, and trembled now, like a scared puppy, dazed by the detonation of events. (Wasn't it only a few moments earlier he had stepped off the Greyhound, independent and carefree?)

Cuffed and shoved into the backseat of the squad car, the Night Stalker, brushing filthy tears from his cheek, made a strange request of the arresting deputy.

"Shoot me now, man! I don't deserve to live."

For once, Los Angeles and Richard Ramirez were of one mind.


Devilish Delays

The nation, in particular the prosecuting District Attorney's office, expected Senor Night Stalker's case to be open and shut, adios, and go to the death chamber quick. After all, the evidence was there and more details were zipping in as collected by the prosecution team's crack head-hunter units.

Little did anyone expect after the Night Stalker's dramatic arrest that his trial was not to commence for nearly two-and-a-half years. Legal manipulations and manoeuvrings would play the largest part in postponing justice. Other factors would be interference from outside sources, such as Ramirez's El Paso family, from hard-headed personal antagonism rampant amongst defense lawyers, and from Ramirez's own behavior and inability to cope with the reality of the judicial system. The defense would chase every loophole. Bias would be shouted, as well as prejudice, and the defense would parade them before a national grandstand, annoying press and public that knew better than to fall for the delays.

"The case appeared to be off to a running start," wrote Clifford L. Linedecker in Night Stalker, "(Los Angeles County District Attorney Ira) Reiner appointed veteran Deputy District Attorney P. Philip Halpin to prosecute the case within hours of Ramirez's arrest."

On Tuesday, Sept. 4, the suspect appeared in court to hear initial charges. "Standing with head bowed, Night Stalker suspect Richard Ramirez was arraigned on a single murder count and seven other charges stemming from two late-night attacks in early May in the San Gabriel Valley," reported the Los Angeles Times. "(He) was charged with murder, burglary, robbery, rape, sodomy and forced oral copulation in the May 14 shooting death (of Harold Wu) and an attack on (Wu's) wife...(He) could face the death penalty."

Simultaneously, San Francisco authorities charged Ramirez with the deaths of Mr. & Mrs. Peter Pan (August 17), and Orange County officials slapped him with murder and rape charges on the attacks on William Carns and Renata Gunther (August 25).

Of the other Los Angeles-area crimes of which he was alleged to have committed, DA Reiner told Times reporters, "Understand that the suspect was arrested just over the weekend. There is a mountain of evidence that has to be collated, has to be analyzed, has to be investigated; there is scientific investigation that is still going on. Within the next couple of weeks, I expect it will all be pulled together and decisions will be made as to which cases will be filed."

As Reiner predicted, during the following month Ramirez garnered 14 allegations of murder, which were accompanied by numerous allegations of attempted murder, robbery, burglary and sexual assault of varying degrees. Investigators had collected physical evidence in the cases involving murder, assault and/or rape on these victims:

* Jennie Vincow (June 28, 1984);

* Dayle Okazaki & Maria Hernandez (March 17, 1985);

* Tsai-Lian Yu (March 17);

* Vincent & Maxine Zazzara (March 27);

* Harold Wu (May 14);

* Ruth Wilson (May 30);

* Malvia Keller & Blanche Wolfe (June 1);

* Patty Higgins (June 28);

* Mary Louise Cannon (July 2);

* Diedre Palmer (July 5);

* Joyce Lucille Nelson (July 7);

* Linda Fortuna (July 7);

* Mason & Lela Kneiding (July 20);

* Chitat Assawahem (July 20);

* Christopher & Virginia Petersen (August 6); and

* Ahmed Zia (August 8).

Additional allegations were filed against Ramirez for crimes that he had not been previously suspected of, but which were recently traced to him: the robbery of an Eagle Rock resident, Thomas Sandova (March 2, 1985); the kidnapping and rape of an eight-year-old child in the same community (March 20); and the burglary of the Monrovia home of Clara Hadsall.

Again, the prosecution expected a lead pipe cinch, but their strategy to move the process along on an even keel was constantly interrupted by professional and not-so-professional shenanigans. What occurred was what Linedecker calls, "a legal circus...a nightmarish marathon that would last four years, cost the state almost $2 million in trial and other legal costs, involve a half-dozen defense attorneys, and almost 3,000 jury interviews."

To begin, there was the series of pyrotechnical relationships between Ramirez's defense lawyers, and between the lawyers and the Ramirez family. Municipal Judge Elva Soper had designated public defender Allen Adashek counsel for the defense, but this move was contrary to the Ramirezes of El Paso who wanted their son and brother to be defended by another attorney, one Manuel Barraza. Adashek claimed he had been appointed chief defense and refused to relinquish the position. After haggling caused delays, Barraza finally backed off, announcing he was not prepared to stay with a trial that he expected to last years.


Lost time

With that matter settled, Ramirez began balking that he did not like Adashek and refused to accept him as his lawyer. It seems to have been a clash of personalities: Adashek was a no-nonsense type who refused to put up with his client's mood swings and bad-boy behavior in court. (At his arraignments, Ramirez threatened the judge, fingered the prosecution, and proved to be an unruly, unacceptable, socially harmful defendant, drawing pentagrams on the palms of his hands and flashing these Satanic symbols into the faces of the media there to cover the proceedings.)

In an effort to keep things rolling and to grant the defendant all the liberties allowed a man on trial - especially a minority -- Judge Soper in October hesitantly accepted Ramirez's request for termination of Adashek and welcomed into court a new counselor hired by Rosa Flores, Ramirez's sister. This latest was a man named Joseph Gallego, a 56-year-old Californian with two decades of legal experience - but, the court discovered, with a very minor police record years earlier. By all indication, he was a talented man who sincerely, personally believed in his client and, very importantly, understood the Latino culture. If given a chance, he probably would have proven quite capable. If given a chance. Flores fired him.

Lost time -- again. In the interim, the defendant still had not answered the court's charges on the alleged felonies, a process that should have occurred immediately after the venue of charges was announced in early September. Months passed and the prosecution was forced to play hold-your-breath until the process could resume.

Flores' new choice of counsel to defend her brother was the team of Daniel and Arturo Hernandez, unrelated despite the matching surnames. Both lawyers had seen little experience in murder trials and certainly had not the grit comparable to upholding the weighty responsibility requested of them by the Ramirez family. Judge Soper herself mediated the court's concern and openly announced her reticence; she clearly pointed out the dangers of procuring inexperienced lawyers to the Ramirez family, but they wouldn't budge. In late October, Soper hesitantly but officially appointed Hernandez & Hernandez as counselors for the defense.

One of their first moves was to try to postpone the preliminary hearing from December, 1986, to April; 1987, vying for six months to adequately prepare their initial defense. The court felt that their request was exaggerated, but not inflexible, postponed the hearing to February 24, after the new year. The prosecution, who felt they had an airtight case and had been raring to go for some time, grumbled. Expressing their disappointment, however, they politely conceded.

In the meantime, the press had noticed the shifting of lawyers, the postponements and, what it considered, the weakness of the court to bend to the new defense counsel's every time-wasting whim. The year 1986 had come and gone and taxpayers were paying for the Night Stalker's bread and board. When Judge Candace Cooper, who would preside over the preliminary hearing, issued a gag order on the hearings, which barred the media from the courtroom, hell broke asunder and the journalism turned blue with curses. The syndicated press appealed the ruling with fervor. As time neared, however, the responsibility of the preliminaries was shifted from Cooper's court to that of jurist James T. Nelson, who, considering the factors, amended all previous decisions and decided to allow the reporters into the courtroom. The media applauded Nelson's recognition of their rights while the Hernandez's, who claimed that their client would be hung by a pack of bloodthirsty newshounds, yelped - but to no avail.

Finally -- the preliminary hearing opened in February, 1987. The purpose of this hearing was to identify which of the many allegations presented against Ramirez should actually come to trial - or, to quote author Linedecker, those charges where "sufficient evidence of crimes had been presented to establish a prima facie case".

Of the 30-plus witnesses who testified during the three-week hearing, they included Jack Vincow, who found his mother's corpse after her brutal slaying in June of 1984; Joseph Duenas, an eyewitness to the Tsai-Lian Yu attack in March, 1985; Maria Hernandez, roommate of the murdered Dayle Okazaki that same night; Ruth Wilson, who was raped on May 30; Renata Gunther, rape victim of August 25; and Esparanza Gonzales, whose boyfriend had unwittingly purchased one of the murder weapons from Ramirez. Throughout, the defense and prosecuting lawyers often became inveigled in vocal squabbles apart from the formal proceedings; the defense accused the court of bias and the prosecution claimed outwardly that the defense's demeanor in court was anything but respectful to the bench.

The defendant himself was totally void of comportment. Judge Nelson repeatedly was forced to warn him to subdue his erratic behavior, his incessant displays of contempt towards opposing counsel and witnesses. Messrs. Hernandez, the court noted, were not supportive of the court, for they often joked and jibed along with Ramirez at the counsel table.

"Ramirez...laughed a lot, and joked with his attorneys, even cackling loudly, during crucial testimony," states Linedecker. "Once he laughed loudly during a young widow's testimony had caused several spectators to cry as she tearfully described how her assailant had raped and beaten her while her slain husband lay nearby...Sometimes, Ramirez sneered openly at the prosecution. (Studying photographs of crime scenes) he smirked...when he came across a death-scene photo he especially liked."

The suspect seemed to enjoy staring down witnesses at the podium in an effort to fluster them, for he realized the power of fear in his Rasputin dark eyes. At one point, the wearied judge, who had had enough of mind games, warned him to stop -stop now! Ramirez tested the warning and once again set his black pupils on the next witness to take the stand. The judge nodded to the bailiff, and the bailiff physically yanked the defendant's head in the other direction. Ramirez grunted and, leaping to his feet, attacked the bailiff. Within seconds, he was overcome by courtroom guards who dragged him from the chambers back to his holding cell.

Hernandez & Hernandez cried unfair, but everyone else, including the judge, gleefully closed their ears. The press loved the confrontation - finally a little justice was exhibited - and they made the most of it.

The preliminary session ended on May 7. Ramirez would be tried on a total of 41 specific criminal charges - 14 for murder, five for attempted murder, 15 for burglary, four for rape, three for forced oral copulation, and four for sodomy. Ramirez pleaded not guilty to all charges. Trial was set for September 2, 1987.

But - again, the defense sought postponement - and the trial was pushed back to December 2. More delays were forthcoming.

Suffering a workload and backup of cases by this time, the original trial judge relinquished the case to conservative Superior Court Judge Michael Tynan. This move, though necessary, provoked more delays. And, when the Hernandez's suddenly sparked an argument out of the clear blue to have the trial removed from the Los Angeles area - where they said their client would not get a fair hearing - another postponement loomed. Eventually shot down, the Hernandez-initiated filing nevertheless wasted many months.

Trial was rescheduled for February 1, 1988.

And the beat went on. Hollering that they had not been given full access to the LAPD files for scrutiny, Hernandez & Hernandez sought and won more time to browse the police records that they claimed had been shut to them.

Trial was re-set for July, 1988, when jury selection finally began.

For the first time, the lawyers from both sides of the table agreed on something: that, because of the media's attention to the ghastly nature of the crimes, it would not be easy to find impartial jurors. A pool of 3,000 prospective jurors was dwindled to half that number, they were then carefully interviewed by both counsels. Cut by cut, slice by slice, twelve of whom both factions approved were at last chosen. Six of the jurors were Latino. It had been an enormous, monumental, historical example of the American right to fair trial at work.

The trial of Richard Ramirez began on January 29, 1989, the Night Stalker's terror almost a dim memory to the American public -- except for those who lived it. They would always remember. And they were hungry for justice.


Justice

Judge Tynan's courtroom hummed with excitement the day the trial opened in late January. Estimated length of the trial, claimed reporters, was four to six months. Television cameras, allowed to shoot portions of the trial, remained unobtrusively behind the reporters scratching their observations in steno pads; on the public benches lawmen who had taken part in the capture of Ramirez, including Detective Frank Salerno, sat intermingled with random spectators lucky enough to have obtained a seat. Defendant Richard Ramirez sat calmly at the counsel's table; his lawyer had dressed him in a conservative suit and had seen that his stringy hair was styled; sunglasses covered his menacing gaze. A gavel announced the commencement of the proceedings and, as the bailiff called for quiet, only the whir of the ceiling fan could be heard. Then Prosecutor Philip Halpin spoke.

He addressed the jury, reminding them that they were there to try a vicious monster who had no regard for human life or decency, a ghoul who had torture-killed many and had left many alive to face days of pain and deformity. He reminded them that this monster worshiped the devil and fed to him innocent people as sacrificial lambs, their own beds being the chosen bloody altars.

There was no doubt, he said, that Ramirez was guilty. Four different small-caliber handguns that belonged to him were traced down as far away as Texas; ballistic tests already proved they killed the victims. Jewelry belonging to several other victims was located at his sister's home in El Paso where the woman unwittingly accepted them as gifts. Then there were Ramirez's finger and shoe prints found at the crime scenes. And then, of course, there were witnesses - many of them -- ready to come forward to identify Ramirez as their rapist, their assailant, and the killer of their husbands and boyfriends.

He concluded: "We have alleged these murders are in the first degree, were premeditated, and occurred during burglaries or other crimes. We are asking for the death penalty."

Defense lawyer Daniel Hernandez waived his opening remarks until the prosecution fully concluded its forum later in the trial. Halpin had made such a dent that it was obvious that, at this point, there wasn't much one could say in rebuttal. In fact, as the trial progressed, Hernandez's weak start became weaker; not only because the prosecution's evidence was so strong, but because his partner Arturo suspiciously proved to be a no-show. Going it alone against a Goliath, Daniel Hernandez was overwhelmed and exhausted. A month into the trial, Hernandez announced he required medical leave.

In view of all the costly delays that had already occurred, Judge Tynan refused to grant a suspension, but commandeered help for Hernandez. He replaced the invisible Arturo with criminal lawyer Ray Clark, an attorney of merit.

Clark virtually took over the case of the defense with alacrity. He was a well-meaning and clever lawyer who reshaped the defense's platform by trying to show that Ramirez in many instances was a victim of mistaken identity. But, it was all too late for that, and to no avail.

Of the 165 witnesses who addressed the court, most of them brought damaging testimony against the defendant. Witness after witness for the prosecution had sworn under oath, identifying Ramirez; they remembered his exact words, his cursing to the devil, and they were simply unable to forget those pair of dark eyes that, despite the masquerade of sunglasses, were Richard Ramirez's.

The shades, for that matter, concealed absolutely nothing, especially the negatively kinetic Thing that dwelt beneath them. As during his preliminary hearing, Ramirez remained his uncontrollable self throughout the court, defying the judge's orders to keep quiet, muttering under his breath at witnesses and bursting into idiotic laughter during damaging testimony.

"At the trial, the killer played to the press," declares Jay Robert Nash in his crime anthology, Bloodletters and Badmen. "He flashed the palm of his hand where he had drawn a livid sign of the pentagram. On other occasions, as he sat listening to the prosecution condemn him for his crimes, he placed two upturned fingers on either side of his temples to indicate horns and intoned: 'Evil...Evil...Evil...'"

Not the way to befriend a jury.

Closing arguments having ended in July, it was now the jury's turn to summon a verdict.

Delays, a trademark of the Ramirez case, occurred even during jury deliberation. One juror was fired for sleeping and replaced with an alternative. Frighteningly, another was murdered by a jealous boyfriend. She, too, was replaced. But, both these occurrences drew time. Months crawled while the nation awaited a verdict.

On September 20, 1989, Richard Ramirez was brought from his cell to hear what the jury members ultimately decided: Guilty on all counts.

Despite pleas from the defense, the jury recommended death.

When Judge Tynan asked the prisoner if he had anything to say on his own behalf, Ramirez, in true Night Stalker mien, cursed the court, cursed the jurors, cursed the world. "I need not look beyond this room to see all the liars, haters, the killers, the crooks, the paranoid cowards - truly trematodes of the Earth," he rambled. "You maggots make me sick - one and all...I am beyond your experience, I am beyond good and evil..."

But, the nation cared not what he had to say. All it cared was that he was not beyond the gas chamber. In the end, that's all that mattered most.

But, there was one more side to consider, that of the victims who lived, and the victims' families. On November 11, 1989, USA Today quoted Don Nelson who had found the mutilated remains of his mother Joyce in July of 1985. Asked what he thought of his mother's killer's death sentence, Nelson replied, "It doesn't bring my mom back, but he can no longer threaten anybody. I still see what my mom looked like as a result of what he did, and that's something I'm going to have to deal with over the remainder of my life."

*****

Today, Richard Ramirez sits in San Quentin's Death Row, where he was deposited more than a decade ago. Having been tried for the crimes he is known to have committed in Los Angeles, he still has not been tried for the alleged murders that occurred in the San Francisco/Orange County area. In 1995, the then-10-year-old case against Ramirez for the killing of Mr. & Mrs. Pan in Lake Merced, Orange County, was put on indefinite hold pending further investigation.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "The delay in the San Francisco case was sought while appeals of his previous murder conviction are heard...Los Angeles prosecutors have opposed a San Francisco murder trial, fearing it would undermine the earlier convictions and death sentence."

But, there is no way Ramirez will ever again see the light of day.


Bibliography

Fox, James Alan and Jack Levin, Overkill: Mass Murder and Serial Killing Exposed. Dell 1996.

Hickey, Eric W., Serial Murderers and Their Victims. Wadsworth Publishing, 1997.

Lane, Brian and Wilfred Gregg, The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. Berkley Books, 1995.

Linedecker, Clifford L., Night Stalker. St. Martin's Press, 1991.

Nash, Jay Robert, Bloodletters and Badmen. M. Evans & Company, 1995.

Wilson, Colin and Donald Seaman, The Serial Killers: A Study in the Psychology of Violence. Virgin Publishing, 1997.

CrimeLibrary.com

The Night Stalker

by John Boston

SATAN'S OWN

It all began the early morning of June 28, 1984, in the small suburban community of Glassel Park. It wasn't designed to be what it became: the first in a series of murders of escalating brutality that threw the entire Los Angeles area into complete panic. It was a burglary, but the burglar, strung out on cocaine and secure in the belief that Satan would protect him, was a time bomb ready to explode.

He parked his car down the street and walked to the two-story apartment building. For no particular reason, he selected the home of seventy-nine-year-old Jennie Vincow. It was such a warm night that she had the window of her first floor apartment open. The gloved hands carefully removed the screen and opened the window wider. Quiet as a cat, he got into the apartment and moved toward the bedroom.

Soundlessly, he looked through the drawers, but found nothing that he could turn into cash for drugs or sex. He was furious that the old woman had nothing of value for him to steal. He would take something anyway, something very precious to Jennie -- her life. The thought of it excited him, so he took out his hunting knife and plunged it into the breast of the sleeping woman.

She screamed and tried to fight him off, but he kept stabbing her. Finally, with one hand over her mouth, he slit her throat from ear to ear, nearly decapitating her. He was so energized by the thrill that he stabbed her three more times in the chest.

Rampage

The next afternoon, Jennie Vincow's son went to take her a treat and found her horribly murdered. His call to LAPD brought two seasoned homicide detectives, Jesse Castillo and Mike Wynn. The only clues they had to go on were four reasonably good fingerprints to match against any suspect they found. Manual comparison of fingerprints with the millions of prints already on file at LAPD would have taken years to complete. Like many homicides, there was a flurry of activity as potential suspects were interviewed and eliminated one by one. Eventually, the activity on the case slowed to a crawl.

A number of months later, the Night Stalker came back to life on the evening of March 17, 1985. Maria Hernandez, a pretty dark-haired woman, drove her car into the parking garage of her new Rosemead condominium. She shared the condo with another very attractive woman, thirty-five-year-old Dayle Okazaki, a traffic supervisor for L.A. County.

She pushed the button to shut the garage door and located her building key. The lights in the garage stayed on only for a short time after the garage door button was pushed. Suddenly she was looking at the barrel of a .22-caliber revolver. She screamed and begged him not to shoot her, but he kept walking toward her.

The garage lights automatically went out as they were programmed to do, leaving Maria alone with a gun pointed at her head. She reflexively raised her hand to protect her face. The gun fired and she fell down, but luck was with her and the keys in her hand deflected the bullet. She played dead while he took her keys and entered her condominium.

Dayle, hearing the shot and someone coming into the apartment ducked down beneath the kitchen counter and waited. A few minutes later, she peeked and he shot her right in the forehead.

Maria saw him, all dressed in black, escaping down the front walkway. He happened to see her and pointed the gun at her again. She begged him not to shoot her again and she was lucky a second time. He ran back to his stolen car and left her alive.

Maria ran back in her house and tried to revive her roommate Dayle. Then she called 911 and two L.A. County sheriff's deputies came her house, confirming that Dayle was dead.

The murder of Dayle Okazaki was not enough for one night. He drove over to Monterey Park and sighted a pretty young woman of Chinese descent. Veronica Yu noticed that a man in a Toyota was following her. She pulled her car over and stopped so that she could get a better look at him. He passed her by, but then she began to follow him.

He stopped the car and walked over to hers, unaware that Jorge Gallegos and his girlfriend Edith Alcaaz were watching from their vehicle down the street. She demanded to know why he was following her and threatened to call the police with his license plate number.

He grabbed her by the shoulders and tried to pull her out of the window of the car. Failing that, he got into the car with her, pulled out his revolver and shot her in the side. She scrambled out the other door and fell on the street, crying for help.

"Bitch!" he yelled and laughed loudly at her. He got back into his car and sped off, leaving her to die. Jorge and Edith ran to Veronica Yu. Edith's cousin phoned the Monterey Police Department. When the paramedics came they tried to resuscitate her, but with no luck. Veronica died on the way to the hospital.

Initially, police did not connect these two St. Patrick's Day murders to each other or to the murder of Jennie Vincow months earlier. The murders occurred in three different jurisdictions. Criminals, especially burglars, were well aware of the lack of communication and cooperation among the law enforcement agencies in the Greater Los Angeles area and used that fact to their advantage.

It just happened that Maria Hernandez's godmother was the mother of Deputy Gil Carrillo of L.A. Sheriff's Homicide unit. Coincidentally, Carrillo happened to be randomly assigned to the Hernandez/Okazaki case. Carrillo was no ordinary cop. First, he was a giant of a man, six feet four inches tall, weighing in at 280 pounds. Secondly, he was a very personable man, but extremely tough and experienced. He was a Medal of Valor and Bronze Star veteran of Vietnam and had worked on more than 300 murder cases.

Carrillo knew from his studies with the FBI's Behavior Sciences group at Quantico, VA, that some killers got their sexual kicks from the murdering of a person. Carrillo called up Detective Tony Romero of the Monterey Police and they exchanged information about the Hernandez/ Okazaki and Veronica Yu cases. Carrillo was beginning to think that these two cases were linked by the "man in black." Both of these crimes seemed to be motiveless and random, indicating the potential of a serial killer on the loose.

Immediately, Carrillo sought the advice of their serial killer expert, Sgt. Frank Salerno who had headed up the task force to bring in the Hillside Strangler. "Frank was the very best we had," Carrillo said. "You couldn't find a better homicide detective anywhere than Salerno." Salerno was the man who used a tiny piece of thread to tie the two culprits to the murder of ten women.

"Bulldog" Salerno was man known for his tenacity. Also a big man, six foot two inches tall and 220 pounds, he kept himself at perfect shape by swimming in his pool everyday. He was also a gun aficionado and a crack shot.

Carrillo collected all of the evidence and eyewitness reports that they had and took the information to Frank. Importantly, several people had seen the killer, including Maria. "He was five ten, thin, with black hair and dark, real scary, eyes," she said of him. He dressed in black, possibly the owner of a hat with the emblem of the heavy metal rock group AC/DC that had fallen off in the garage.

Salerno told Carrillo to start looking at the crime reports and released sex criminals. In all likelihood, the man had killed before and just not been tied to the earlier crimes. "A man does not become a killer overnight."

The Night Stalker took an eight-day vacation before he began the hunt again. This time in the early morning of March 26, he visited the well-to-do community of Whittier. At two in the morning he silently pulled up to the home of Vincent and Maxine Zazzara in his stolen Toyota. From the outside of the house, he could see the middle-aged Zazzara sleeping on the couch in front of the television. Through another window, he saw Maxine asleep on her bed.

He tried to get the screen off, but everything was locked up. Eventually, he hoisted himself up to the laundry room window and pried open the window. Once inside, he went straight to the den and shot Zazzara in the head with his .22 caliber revolver. Vincent tried to get up, but the .22 had already done its damage to his brain and he fell over onto the floor.

Then he went right to the bedroom. The shot had awakened Maxine, but by the time she could collect her thoughts, he had tied her hands together with a necktie. While he was ransacking the bedroom, she did something very bold. Knowing that there was a shotgun that her husband kept under the bed, she quietly and quickly rolled off the bed and grabbed the shotgun.

By the time he saw her, he was looking down the barrel of a shotgun. He reached for the gun in his pants and she immediately pulled the trigger. No big boom, just a little click. Vincent had taken all the ammunition out when the grandkids had come over for the weekend.

He shot her three times with the .22. Then he beat her and kicked her, but it wasn't enough to vent his fury. He raced into the kitchen, brought back a carving knife with a 10-inch blade, and tried to cut out her heart. He couldn't cut through her rib cage so he cut out her eyes and put them in a jewelry box. He pulled up her nightgown with the idea of sexually assaulting her, but he was too keyed up by the episode with the shotgun. Finally he stabbed her stomach, throat and pubic area. He took everything he could fence and left by the front door, his clothes drenched in Maxine's blood.

When friends found the Zazzaras later that day, the sheriff's homicide detectives were brought in. They found the killer's shoeprint on the patio and on the large can he used to climb into the laundry room. The same shoeprints were in the flower bed just under the window the killer had entered. The shoeprints matched one discovered in the attempted abduction of a young L.A. woman.

At that point, there was not enough reason to tie the Zazzara attack to the attacks on Jennie Vincow, Dayle Okazaki and Veronica Yu. When Carrillo heard of the Zazzara murders, he had a hunch it was the same man, but his colleagues laughed at his suggestion. "No one suspect did all these crimes," they told him.

Eighteen days after he murdered the Zazzaras, the Night Stalker cruised around Monterery Park where he had killed Veronica Yu. It was early morning when he parked his car on Trumblower Avenue. He noticed a woman drive by and look at him. Her name was Launie Dempster and she delivered the Herald Examiner. During the day, she worked as a security guard at a college in Whittier.

The killer selected the home of William and Lillian Doi, a retired couple of Japanese descent. Lillian was wheelchair bound, having suffered a crippling stroke a couple of years earlier. He went around the back of the house and found an open window. He cut the screen and opened the window wide enough to crawl in. First he went into Bill's bedroom. Bill heard him and grabbed one of the handguns he kept around the house for security reasons. The killer was too fast for him. Holding the .22 in combat position, he shot Bill just above the upper lip. Then he beat Bill into unconsciousness.

By this time, Lillian was awake and thoroughly terrified. The killer went over to her bed, slapped her and warned her not to make any noise. "Shut up, bitch, or I'll kill you." He immobilized her hands with thumb cuffs and began to ransack the house.

Bill regained consciousness briefly, so the killer went back in the room and beat him once again until he passed out. So excited by the violence, he went back into Lillian's bedroom and raped the fifty-six-year-old invalid woman.

After the intruder left, Bill briefly regained consciousness, dragged himself into Lillian's room and summoned up enough strength to call the police. First came the fire department and then the Monterey Park police. William Doi was pronounced dead at 5:13 in the morning.

A short time later, Detective Paul Torres found the footprints from a pair of Avia brand shoes on the rear patio and on the screen that the killer had removed. They made a plaster cast of the shoeprints.

When Carrillo went over to talk to Torres, he was not welcomed, since it was not his jurisdiction. Consequently, Carrillo did not hear about the Avia footprints that would have matched the footprints from the Zazzara murders and the attempted abduction of the girl from L.A. Jurisdictional problems and jealousies have marred the relationships between the Los Angeles area law enforcement agencies for decades. Sometimes, this lack of communication and cooperation merely slows down the capture of criminals such as in the Charles Manson case, but in the Night Stalker case, lives may have been lost as a consequence.

On the night of May 29, the killer headed northeast of Los Angeles to the town of Monrovia in the San Gabriel Valley. Randomly, he selected the house of eighty-one-year-old Mabel Bell, who lived with her invalid sister Nettie Lang. Crime was not something she worried much about, so she habitually left her doors unlocked.

The killer went in the front door very quietly. He found a hammer in the kitchen and sunk it repeatedly into Nettie's head. Then he did the same to Mabel until her head was a bloody mess and brain matter scattered all about the room. He took the cord from her nightstand clock, exposed the wire and used it to send electric currents into the body of the beaten woman. With her red lipstick, he drew one pentagram on her thigh and one on the wall above her head.

He went back into Nettie's bedroom, all fired up from what he had done, ripped off the nightgown of the elderly woman and raped her. He decorated Nettie's room with another pentagram, grabbed a softdrink and banana in the kitchen and left.

Before the two women were discovered, he was at it again. The thrill and sexual high of what he did to Mabel and Nettie was so great that he needed to repeat it again immediately. Burbank was the location he decided upon for this particular hunt. The house he selected was locked up tight, so he reached through the dog door and was able to reach up and unlock the back door.

He saw the sleeping woman and shined a flashlight in her eyes. "Wake up, bitch! Don't scream or I'll kill you." When he asked who else was in the house, a terrified Carol Kyle told him that her eleven-year-old son was in the next room. He made her lead him to the boy's bedroom door and then lie down on the floor.

He astonished her and her son when he opened the boy's door, turned on the light and jumped on the sleeping boy, putting a gun to his head. Carol ran into the room and put herself between the killer and her son. "Please don't hurt him. Take whatever you want, just don't hurt him, please!"

"Don't look at me," he commanded her while he handcuffed the mother and son together. He took the two of them and closed them in the hall closet. Just as he shut the door, he opened it again and said, "You don't have any guns in here, do you?"

She told him that she didn't own any guns, but he went frantically searching the house just in case. Then he demanded her jewelry. She promised to give it to him as long as he didn't hurt her children. He uncuffed the two of them, and then cuffed the son's hands behind him and shut him back up in the closet. He tied her hands together with pantyhose and threw her on the bed.

"Do what I say and you'll both be all right," he said as he ripped off her nightgown and panties and forced her to go down on him. He sodomized her several times roughly. The more she hurt, the more he was turned on by it. She described his eyes as absolutely demonic, so she was careful not to do anything to resist him or make him angry. He was like a bomb ready to explode.

After this assault, he went to get a softdrink from the kitchen and told her that she wasn't bad sexually, considering her age (forty-two). "You're lucky I'm letting you live. I've killed a lot of people you know."

Finally, he gave her a nightgown to cover herself and brought her son in the room where he cuffed them both to the bed. The key to the cuffs he left on the mantel so that when her daughter came home, she could free them.

"You say anything about who I am and I'll have my friends come back here...I know where you live, remember."

When they were finally rescued, nobody at the Burbank police department linked the assault on Carol Kyle to the other attacks and consequently, Carrillo at the sheriff's homicide unit was not called. The next day, Carol worked with an artist to capture his features, but the composite was not a successful rendering of the man who attacked her.

Night Stalker composite

A few days later, the handyman found Nettie and Mabel. Remarkably, the two were still alive, but just barely. They had multiple skull fractures, exposed brain matter and tears around the vagina. Both elderly women were comatose. Monrovia police called in the sheriff's homicide detectives to help. Even though neither woman was dead, the Bell/Lang attack was so life threatening that the small police force needed the sheriff's resources to address the matter.

There was a great deal of evidence for them to collect. After raping, torturing and beating the old women almost to death, the killer made himself right at home. They found two half-eaten bananas, a toilet full of urine, and empty softdrink cans. There was a footstep marked in blood.

If it was one man responsible for all of these attacks, then they had a very unusual serial killer on their hands. For the most part, a serial killer sticks with one particular type of victim. If the same man who assaulted Mabel and Nettie killed the Zazzaras, Bill Doi, Dayle Okazaki and Veronica Yu, then they had a unique breed of serial killer on their hands from whom no one was safe.

In early June, the killer selected a house in Pico Rivera, about a half-mile from the Zazzara's home and a few blocks away from the home of Detective Carrillo's mother. It was just around midnight when he tried the windows, but they were locked, except for the one in the dining room. He took off the screen, but had trouble raising the window, which was stuck in place by dried paint. A screwdriver loosened it and he opened the window slowly.

Inside the house he heard a woman call out, "John, did you open the window?"

L.A. Sheriff's deputy John Rodriguez got out of bed and went into the living room where his wife Susan was watching the late news.

"Well, it wasn't me, and that window's been sealed for two years -- ever since I painted the house.."

"I heard it go up," she insisted.

With that, the killer wisely abandoned the house and went back to his car, but he left his distinctive Avia footprint right under the dining room window. The deputy called in the attempted housebreaking immediately and Detective Carrillo was notified. All of a sudden, this case became intensely personal to Carrillo. His mother could have become a victim like Nettie Lang or Mabel Bell.

It was a bad night for the killer, too. He just couldn't find the right house to invade and it made him mad. He tried to kidnap a girl in Eagle Rock, but someone called the cops and he had to run. Then, to make matters worse, he ran a red light and was stopped by an LAPD motorcycle cop.

With no driver's license, no registration, and a stolen Toyota, the killer began to get a bit nervous. But as luck would have it, the motorcycle cop, even though he had heard that the description of the man who had tried to abduct the girl and knew the perpetrator was driving a stolen Toyota, didn't connect the two events.

The officer walked back to the killer to give him a traffic ticket and asked, "Hey...you're not the guy killing people in their homes, are you?"

"No way, man" the killer protested. "When are you guys going to catch that motherfucker anyway?" When the cop went back to his motorcycle, the killer drew a pentagram on the Toyota's hood and ran away. The cop tried to catch him, but the killer got away.

The officer went back to the stolen car and found a wallet with a hundred in cash, a dentist's appointment card, and a phone book with half a dozen phone numbers. The cop didn't think to have the car dusted for prints even though some would have certainly been made when the pentagram was drawn. When Carrillo heard about the incident and the attempted abduction, he went over to LAPD, but was told that they wouldn't release any information until the higher ups approved.

Carrillo went to the crime lab and told them he needed to know everything about these Avia Aerobic sneakers that were the one link between many of the crimes. What stores carried them? How many came to this area? What means existed to track down the buyers of the very large size sneakers like the killer had?

That afternoon, Frank Salerno and Gil Carrillo decided to become official partners. Carrillo was thrilled to be working with a man so worthy of respect. The two of them knew it was just a matter of time before the Night Stalker was theirs.

Reign of Terror

In early June, Carrillo and Salerno were called to investigate the murder of Patty Higgins, a pretty twenty-eight-year-old woman who lived in Arcadia. She had been beaten badly and nearly decapitated. The wounds to her neck were a combination of a stab and a slash which had been quickly fatal to the attractive young schoolteacher. It appeared that she had been sodomized.

Their were no Avia prints and no .22 caliber revolver, so they had nothing to tie the murder specifically to the Night Stalker. But the sheer brutality of the attack pointed in his direction.

The Night Stalker struck again on July 2, going back to the suburb of Arcadia, northeast of the city at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains. He selected the home of seventy-five-year-old Mary Louise Cannon, who lived alone. Her ranch-style home was completely dark. Very sure of himself, he lifted the screen off the front window, pried it open and entered quietly.

He made sure that the sleeping woman was alone and then took a lamp from her dresser and slammed it down on her head, beating her and choking her into unconsciousness. Then he took a knife from the kitchen and stabbed her in the throat over and over again. Finally, he ransacked her house and left by the front door.

When Salerno and Carrillo came to investigate this second brutal murder in Arcadia, they realized that their man had done both killings. The stab-slashing of the throat on Mary Louise Cannon was identical to the one inflicted on Patty Higgins. There was something more -- the imprint of a large footprint in the nap of a new rug. The print was cut from the rug and rushed to the laboratory. Also, a piece of tissue was found on the floor that clearly bore the unique waffle pattern of the Avia Aerobic sneaker.

At that point, they had the evidence to prove that there was a terrifying new serial killer at work. Salerno and Carrillo met with Captain Bob Grimm and were given the resources and authority to mount a full-scale investigation.

A couple of days later, the killer went back a third time to the upscale community of Arcadia and selected the home of executive Steve Bennett, his wife and children, sixteen-year-old Whitney and eighteen-year-old James.

He got in through the front door and, as was his custom, prowled around the house until he knew exactly how many people were there sleeping. This time he brought the tire iron from the stolen car so that he could beat the Bennetts to death. He battered sixteen-year-old Whitney ten times with the tire iron. Then he took some telephone cord, wrapped it around her neck and tightened it.

For some reason, he left the house without ransacking it or waking the other members of the household.

The next day, a beaten and bruised Whitney awakened in a pool of her own blood with a horrendous headache. She had no idea what had happened to her. Later that day, the waffle pattern of the Avia Aerobic shoe was clearly visible on Whitney's comforter, and the mystery was solved.

The next day, Salerno and Carrillo developed a composite description of the Night Stalker. He was tall, with a shoe size of 11 and 1/2, Hispanic with unkempt black hair, poor teeth and a bad "wet leather" odor about him. He was a Satanist and a sadist, with a particular interest in sodomy. Carol Kyle called him a good-looking, light-skinned Mexican, who was very vicious.

On July 7, the Night Stalker, dressed as he normally was all in black, went back to Monterey Park where he had murdered Bill Doi and Veronica Yu. He chose the home of sixty-one-year-old Joyce Nelson and entered her home through an unlocked window. She was sleeping on the couch in front of the television when he put the .22 to her head.

He grabbed her by the hair and pulled her toward the bedroom. She tried to fight him off, but it made him even angrier. He knocked her to the floor and beat her into unconsciousness with his fists. Then he dragged her into the bedroom, kicked her in the face so hard that the imprint of his Avia shoe was visible on her face. He beat her to death, robbed her home and walked out the front door to his car.

But that was not enough for one night. The Night Stalker came back to Monterey Park again around 3 in the morning. He picked the home of sixty-three-year-old Sophie Dickman, a psychiatric nurse. All of her doors and windows were locked so, but he was persistent. He reached inside a pet door and was able to unlock the door from that.

When he was sure that she was alone in the house, he pulled out his revolver, turned on the lights and charged at her bed. As he held his hand over her mouth, he told her. "Don't look at me! Don't make a fucking sound or I'll kill you!" Then he put the .22 to her head, "Undermotherfuckingstand?"

Sophie knew who he was immediately from reading about him in the newspapers. Her experience as a psychiatric nurse kept her from doing anything to set him off as he handcuffed her and put a pillowcase over his head.

"Where's the diamonds and where's the money?"

When she told him she didn't have any, he punched her in the face. "Liar! Where's the jewelry or you are fucking dead!"

She told him her jewelry was in a hiding place in the bathroom. He dragged her in there and she gave him everything she had hidden. While he was examining her jewelry, she slipped off her diamond ring and hid it, but he caught her at it and punched her again in the face.

He tried unsuccessfully to rape her, but he couldn't get an erection. Then he demanded to know where her other valuables were hidden. She swore to him that she had no other jewelry. He made her swear on Satan that she wasn't hiding anything more from him.

He handcuffed her to the bed and warned her not to scream. "Remember, I know where you live," he told her and proceeded to ransack the house. Right opposite Sophie Dickman's house, Sheriff's Deputy Linda Arthur lived. Mrs. Dickman's calls to her woke her up and she went over in her bathrobe to help her neighbor.

Realizing that the Monterey Park police would not be particularly receptive to Carrillo from the sheriff's office coming to the crime scene, Linda Arthur made sure that they understood that Carrillo was a friend of hers and that she had asked him for help.

At first, they weren't sure it was the Night Stalker. The characteristic Avia footprints were not found around Sophie's house. Sophie described the Stalker as a good-looking, tall, thin man with bad teeth .

But soon, the discovery of Joyce Nelson and the Avia footprint on her face confirmed that the Night Stalker was indeed on a rampage that night. Carrillo and Salerno raced to Joyce Nelson's home, but the news media beat both of them to the punch. It was finally clear that a serial killer was at work.

Philip Carlo in his book The Night Stalker describes the scenario: "Quickly, word of the incredible brutality, missing eyes, pentagrams, torture, sodomy, and brutal rapes spread among the newspeople like blood on white satin. There were camera crews from every network, as well as print reporters with photographers from all of the newspapers, Spanish and Japanese included...When the news media learned that the Frank Salerno, of Hillside Strangler fame, was running the task force for this new serial killer...they wouldn't leave him alone. He, and soon Carrillo as well, were hounded by reporters...from as far away as England, Israel, and Brazil."

The criminalists at the sheriff's office had gathered some very important information on the Avia Aerobic Shoe. Very few had been made and only six pair had been sold in Los Angeles. Of those six pair of Avias, only one pair was size 11 and 1/2. Photos of the unique shoe were rushed to all the police agencies in Los Angeles County.

Finally, LAPD let the sheriff's office have the car that was left behind when the Night Stalker was scared off by the motorcycle cop. Carrillo and Salerno also found out about the dentist's appointment card and the book with phone numbers that had been left in the car. After that, the area's law enforcement groups started to pull together.

They contacted Dr. Leung, who told them that a Richard Mena had made the appointment. The dentist was sure that the man would need treatment soon because of a very painful condition. A deputy was stationed in the dentist's office and the task force focused on trying to find a Richard Mena with very large feet.

All of the publicity made things harder for the task force. Every one seemed to know who the Night Stalker was and the sheriff's office was inundated with tips from both citizens and police alike. However, one of the few good things that did result from the publicity was that people in Los Angeles area became very security conscious, making sure that they locked their windows and doors. Sales of guns, security systems and guard dogs soared.

The biggest downside of the publicity was the effect on the Night Stalker himself. He was catapulted into celebrity status and his sick ego fed on every scrap. The publicity validated his power and encouraged him to plan even more brutal attacks. He, too, became very security conscious now that the police had put their best men on his track.

On July 17, Mabel Bell died from the head wounds the Night Stalker had inflicted on her at the end of May. Her sister, Nettie Lang, remained alive, but in a coma.

Armed with a new huge machete, the Night Stalker was anxious to get back to work. On July 20, he selected the upscale city of Glendale and cruised down its streets until he came to the home of Max and Lela Kneidling, both in their sixties. He sneaked into their bedroom and slammed the machete at Max's neck, but the blade was not sharp enough to decapitate him. Annoyed, he shot both husband and wife in the face with his revolver. Afterwards, he used his new machete to cut and stab them.

He had to ransack the house quickly before the gun shots brought the police. The night was still young and his savagery had not tired him, so he drove to Sun Valley to select another victim. A little after 4 A.M., he decided upon the home of Chainarong and Somkid Khovananth, immigrants from Thailand, and their two young children..

He gained entry through an unlocked patio door. As he stepped into the den, he saw the tiny, attractive Somkid sleeping on the couch. He put a .25 caliber gun to her head.

"Don't make a fucking sound, bitch, or I'll kill you!"

He left her and went to the bedroom where her husband Chainarong was sleeping, put the gun to his head and shot him to death. He ran back to Somkid and noticed that she had taken off her wedding ring. He slapped her.

"Don't play no fucking games, bitch! Where's the ring?"

She showed him and he pocketed the diamond. Then he ripped off her nightgown and dragged her into the bathroom where he cut the cord on the hairdryer and used it to tie her hands behind her back. He took her back into the bedroom where he raped her in the presence of her dead husband.

Their boy's alarm clock went off, so he left Somkid momentarily to tie up the boy and gag him with a sock.

He forced her to go down on him and sodomized her. Then he told her he'd kill her and the kids if she didn't give him all of their cash and valuables. She gave him the diamonds and other precious stones she had gotten from her brother who was a jeweler.

"And where's the money?"

"No money, no money! I swear, I swear to God!" she cried.

"No! Swear to Satan!"

He raped her again, tied her ankles together, finished ransacking her home and left.

Again, the lack of cooperation among the police jurisdictions interfered with the case. Neither Sun Valley nor Glendale police notified the sheriff's office about the murders. It wasn't until the next day that Carrillo and Salerno found out about them.

The Avia shoe print was in evidence at the scene of the Sun Valley attack, but not at the Glendale murders. Somkid worked with a police artist to create a composite. "He is dangerous beyond words," she told them. "So brutal; so mean, so cruel. His eyes were like an animal's, not human." The composite was given to the press and every cop in the area had it taped to the dashboard of the police car.

Los Angeles was in a state of panic. No one was safe from this brutal monster. Philip Carlo described the effect the Night Stalker had on everyone in the area: "All over L.A., the police were getting reports of a suspicious man in black. Elderly women were terrified of being alone. Girls had to be home early from dates. Husbands sat up all night standing guard with bats and guns at the ready. Children insisted on sleeping in their parents' beds; many people couldn't sleep at all. Communities pooled their resources and set up patrols that walked the streets until dawn."

The Stalker's next hit was in the lovely community of Northridge. He chose the home of thirty-eight-year-old Chris Petersen, his wife Virginia and their young daughter. All the windows and doors were locked except for the sliding glass door. He went into Chris and Virginia's bedroom and cocked the .25 automatic that he was carrying.

"Who the hell are you? Get out!" Virginia shouted at him.

"Shut up, bitch!" he yelled and shot her just under the left eye. Chris woke up to find half of his wife's face gone and her covered in blood. The stalker shot him in the right temple and laughed. Then he fired another shot at Virginia, but missed. Their daughter started screaming in the next room.

Chris fought with the Stalker, who shot at him, but missed. With his empty gun, the Stalker ran out the sliding glass doors, while Chris called for help. Both of them had been very lucky. The ammunition the Stalker had been using was defective and didn't go through Chris's skull. Virginia's bullet had missed her brain entirely and had exited the back of her neck.

After the Petersen attack, the Stalker decided that he needed to beef up his defenses just in case he had a run-in with the police. He bought an Uzi machine gun to add to his .38 pistol, his .25 automatic and his handcuffs.

On August 8, he drove to the town of Diamond Bar, far enough east of L.A. that they wouldn't be expecting him. He selected the home of Elyas and Sakina Abowath, their three-year-old boy and infant son. The Stalker gained entrance by a sliding glass door and went straight to Elyas and Sakina's bedroom. He walked over to the bed and shot Elyas to death with the .25 automatic.

Then he jumped over Elyas' body and straddled Sakina, punching her in the face and the stomach. "Don't scream, bitch, or I'll kill your kids," he said and slapped her again. He kicked her with such ferocity that she landed on the floor.

"Where's the jewelry, bitch?" He slammed his fist into her face when she didn't answer fast enough. Finally, he found a briefcase with her jewelry. "Don't make a motherfucking sound, understand, bitch?"

"I swear to God I won't scream."

He slammed his fist into her face again. "No! Swear to Satan!" he bellowed.

He ripped off her nightie and her nursing bra and forced her to go down on him. Then he raped her and sodomized her, excited by her pain and humiliation.

She heard her young son crying in the next room. "Please let me go to him," she begged.

"Swear on Satan you won't scream."

She did as he demanded and went into the child's bedroom to calm him down. When the child went back to sleep, the Stalker dragged her in the bedroom, punching and slapping her. He was raping her again, when the little boy opened the bedroom door and walked in. The Stalker tied the boy to the bed and put a pillow over his head to shut him up. Sakina tried to help her son, but he punched her.

It was only after he raped and sodomized her again, that he let her comfort her son. Then he went to the refrigerator and helped himself to some melon. Finally he left, taking all of their valuables with him stashed in a pillowcase, leaving her widowed, handcuffed and nude.

While there were no Avia shoe prints this time, the shoe prints that were found were the same large size as the Avia. There was no doubt that this was the Stalker again. Elyas had been shot in the head exactly where Chainarong Khovananth had been shot.

Despite his painful dental condition, the Stalker never returned to Dr. Leung. However, the sheriff's task force sent out the Stalker's dental X-rays, along with the composite sketch to every dentist in the L.A. area.

The Night Stalker began to worry about getting caught. True, he believed that Satan was protecting him from the police, but there was no point in being careless. Now that the composite sketch had been published, along with numerous physical descriptions of him, he felt like people were staring at him. Then there was his fence, who wouldn't think twice about turning him in for the $80,000 reward.

Time to take a visit to San Francisco. Nobody would be expecting him there. It would be so much easier to get into houses when people were not on their guard like they were in Los Angeles. He stole a car and drove north to San Francisco. As soon as he arrived, he drove into Chinatown, followed an elderly woman home and beat her senseless.

Early in the morning of August 8, the Stalker invaded the home of Peter and Barbara Pan, well-to-do immigrants from Hong Kong. When he entered Peter's bedroom, he put the .25 automatic to Peter's head and shot him dead. He tried to rape Barbara, but she fought him off and he shot her.

Taking her lipstick, he wrote on the wall of the bedroom "Jack the Knife" and sketched a pentagram. He ransacked the house and left.

When Salerno and Carrillo heard about the assault on the Pans in San Francisco, they contacted the police. A short conversation on the shell casing found at the Pan home convinced them that the Stalker had indeed moved to San Francisco. The two men took a plane to San Francisco and laid out all of the information that they had collected from the Stalker investigation in Los Angeles.

Amazingly enough, then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein held a news conference in which she told the press about all of the evidence that the L.A. task force had assembled with special attention to the Avia shoe footprints and ballistics evidence. Back in Los Angeles, Salerno and Carrillo were aghast at the mayor had essentially tipped off the Stalker about the most important evidence they had, giving him the opportunity to get rid of the Avia sneakers and the guns.

On August 25, the Stalker may have been starting to get paranoid again. San Francisco was no safer than L.A., so he took his stolen car and headed back home.

He took his stolen Toyota and headed toward Mission Viejo. When he cruised down the street with his lights off at 1 A.M., he didn't notice the teenager fixing his motor scooter. The teenager, James Romero III, noticed the Stalker. The intensely evil expression on the driver's face left an impression on the young man's mind.

He selected the home of twenty-nine-year-old Bill Carns, who lived with his good-looking blond fiancée, Carole Smith. The Stalker got into their home through an unlocked rear window and went straight to the master bedroom. When he got into the bedroom, he cocked the automatic. Bill woke up immediately. The Stalker shot him in the head three times.

"You know who I am?" he asked with a laugh.

Carole Smith was terrified. "No, who are you?"

"I'm the Night Stalker!" He laughed again.

"Oh, God, noooo!"

"Don't say 'God,' say 'Satan.' Say you love Satan!" He slapped her hard across the face.

"I love Satan!" she said.

He punched her in the face. "Louder!"

"I love Satan! Please don't kill me! Please, please!"

He threw her on the bed and tied her up and demanded money and jewelry, constantly slapping and kicking her. Then, after he ransacked the bedroom, he dragged her into a second bedroom where he raped and sodomized her. Then at the end of the brutal assault, a gentle kiss.

His tenderness changed into brutality instantly when he demanded that she give him money. She gave him the $400 that Bill had stashed in the bedroom. "You know, this is all that saved you. This is all your life is worth. I would have killed you if it weren't for this money."

"Tell them the Night Stalker was here."

"I will," she promised.

"Say you love Satan!"

"I love Satan," she said. He laughed and then he left.

On his way back down the street, James Romero III saw the car again and wrote down three digits of the license plate. Later, when he heard of the attack on Bill Carns and Carole Smith, he called the police.

When she felt safe, Carole ran next door and had the neighbor call the police. They got Bill to the hospital where two of the three bullets were removed. Removal of the third bullet would have caused too much damage to Bill's already traumatized skull. The man was lucky and survived it all.

The Stalker always wore gloves, but this time, he was sweating so much that he removed them for awhile. When he ditched the Toyota, he wiped down the car as he always did, just in case there was a print or two. This time, he was not vigilant enough and missed a fingerprint on the rearview mirror.

The Stalker's streak of excellent luck was coming to an end. Jesse Perez had confided in his daughter that he thought one of his shady contacts was the Stalker. He fit the physical description, was a Satanist and he had bad teeth.

Perez's daughter didn't want her father to get into trouble, so she called Homicide Detective Louie Danoff. Once Danoff heard her story, he assured her that her father would be protected.

"He's a loner and always talking about how great Satan is." Salerno showed him the composite sketch and he said it looked like the man he knew as Rick. Perez told them about Rick's fence, Felipe Solano.

Solano admitted knowing Rick, but didn't know his full name or where he lived. When they confiscated all of the stolen goods in Solano's apartment, the police had a storehouse of potential evidence.

A real break in the case occurred when the owner of the stolen Toyota called the police and provided them with the missing digits in the license plate. The car was later recovered and dusted for prints. The criminalist found the one fingerprint that the Stalker had missed.

Another break came when they found a friend of Rick's who had seen him with the silver .25 automatic. Donna Meyer said that Rick was a burglar from El Paso and had given her some jewelry to hold for him. They had become suspicious of him after reading the descriptions of the Night Stalker, which fit Rick so well. Through the leads that Donna Meyer gave the police, they put a last name to Rick. It was Ramirez.

The police went to every flophouse in the Los Angeles area, taking with them the composite sketch. Finally, they got to the Bristol Hotel where there was a tenant in room 315 that fit the description. Up in room 315 was a pentagram on the bathroom door that was almost identical to the one drawn at the homes of Mabel Bell and Peter and Barbara Pan. The criminalists were called in to dust for prints.

They matched the prints and the name to Richard Munoz Ramirez, a two-bit burglar and car thief from El Paso. He fit the description perfectly. His mugshot went out to everyone: police and press. Everyone was looking for Richard Ramirez.

Richard

Richard Ramirez was born February 29, 1960, to Julian and Mercedes Ramirez, two hard working Mexican immigrants. He was their fifth and last child with three brothers and a sister who preceded him. Initially, the family settled in El Paso where Julian had a job laying track for the Santa Fe Railroad. Mercedes had a job at the Tony Lama boot factory where she mixed chemicals and pigments for the boot leather.

Mercedes was carrying Richard while she worked at the boot factory, but had to quit in her fifth month of pregnancy. The fumes from the pigments and poor ventilation made her weak, light-headed and nauseous. While Richard was not planned, he was adored as the baby of the family. His older sister Ruth, who frequently took care of him, was devoted to him.

Julian and Mercedes had very high hopes for their children and constantly sacrificed to provide a good home for them. Their oldest son Joseph had been plagued from childhood by poor health and serious orthopedic problems that were believed to have resulted from his parents' exposure to nuclear fallout and radioactivity from New Mexico. With their limited resources, they paid for fifteen operations to help Joseph try to lead a normal life. Two other boys, Ruben and Robert, had learning disabilities and behavioral problems in school.

It looked as though Richard, the baby, might escape some of the difficulties his older brothers had experienced: "Richard continued to be Ruth's personal doll. For hours she'd play house with him like he was her child, talking to him softly in both English and Spanish. Richard was a good baby, didn't cry much, and ate and slept well. He was particularly good looking, with a well-formed face and big, round, long-lashed eyes....Richard loved music." (Philip Carlo)

Life was not easy in the Ramirez family, but they all worked hard to make ends meet. Julian and Mercedes loved their children and provided for them to the best of their ability. The boys, who were rebellious natured and hot-tempered like their father, could have benefited from more supervision, but Julian had to travel to lay track for the railroad and was away from home frequently.

Ruben and Robert started to get into trouble with the law. They were sniffing glue, stealing cars, burglarizing homes and hanging around with the wrong kids. Julian flew into a rage. He was so ashamed that his boys had become so wild. The boys were punished, but it didn't do any good.

When Richard was in the fifth grade, the family realized that he was epileptic. Sometimes he would have grand mal seizures and other times he would just stare off into space as he experienced petite mal seizures. The doctors told Mercedes that he would grow out of it and eventually he did. Up to the age of thirteen, Richard did comparatively well in school with better than average grades. In the seventh grade, things started to go downhill.

According to his sister, when Richard was arbitrarily thrown off the football team, his pride was very hurt. Richard had been very proud of being a good quarterback and felt it was very unfair of the coach to drop him from the team because he had an occasional blackout from the epilepsy.

Shortly afterwards when he was twelve, Richard found a new mentor, one that would heavily influence his behavior. His cousin Mike had been a Green Beret in Vietnam and had returned from two tours of duty with four medals on his chest. He also brought with him a Polaroid odyssey of rape, torture and mutilation that made a huge impression on young Richard.

This highly successful killer and sadist took Richard under his wing and taught him how to kill and fight. Mike's wife Jessie was alarmed at what Mike had become during the war. She didn't need a husband who did nothing but brag about his wartime brutalities and sexual conquests, smoke pot and hang around with Richard.

Disagreements between the two became more and more heated and one day, in front of Richard, Mike shot his wife in the face. Mike went to trial for the murder, but plead temporary insanity. With his impressive war record, Mike was dealt with leniently and was committed to a mental hospital.

Mike's influence on Richard was indelible. His interest in school had vanished and all the thirteen-year-old boy cared about was getting high on pot. He went to Los Angeles to live for the summer with his brother Ruben who was a heroin addict and a burglar. There was only one objective now -- stealing money to get high.

When he went back to El Paso, the clashes with his father became more prevalent. Julian was heartbroken to see his youngest son going down the wrong path. Richard saw his father as a tyrant. Both of them, like all of the Ramirez men, had terrible, explosive tempers. Eventually, he moved in with his sister Ruth and her husband Roberto.

The problem with Roberto was that he was over-sexed. Roberto and Richard would entertain themselves at night by going to selected homes in the neighborhood and peeping in the windows at unsuspecting women as they undressed.

Richard had always been somewhat hyperactive and required very little rest. "My brother never slept," Ruth said. "He was up all night all the time. He was one of those people who functioned with only a few hours of sleep."

During this period of his life, Richard started taking LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs. At the same time, he started imagining that he was becoming one with Satan. He saw himself as a disciple of Satan.

While he was in high school, he got a job with a hotel and had access to a master key. He began breaking into the rooms while the guests were sleeping so that he could steal their valuables. He was careful enough so that no one connected the occasional thefts with his access to the passkey.

He became obsessed with the beautiful women in the hotel. Often, he would sneak into the room and hide behind the heavy curtains so that he could watch them undress. He fantasized about sex with these women until his fantasies erupted into an assault.

He went into the woman's room, surprised her from behind, tied her up and proceeded to rape her when her husband came into the room and knocked Richard to the ground. He gave Richard a well deserved beating and turned him over to the police. Richard's parents were in denial. There was no way that their baby Richie could have assaulted that woman. Richard convinced his family that the woman had lured him to have sex and her husband simply came back unexpectedly.

Richard was only fifteen and the judge was lenient. He got away without any probation. Even his parents believed his story.

Cousin Mike got out of the mental hospital at the end of 1977 and started hanging around with Richard again. By that time, Richard had become a very effective burglar and thief. From Mike he learned survival tactics and how to be tough. Aside from his cousin, he saw himself as a loner in a hostile unfair world.

When Richard turned eighteen in 1978, he left his home in El Paso and headed for Los Angeles. His only interests were drugs, sexual fantasies and the heavy metal music which he listened to continuously. Philip Carlo describes the dangerous young man that he had become: "He was drawn to musical groups whose rhythms were hard-driving and whose lyrics had something to do with his innermost thoughts on religion and sex. He no longer believed in the Catholic Church....Intense sadistic sexual images filled Richard's head...For such thoughts, Jesus Christ, he knew, would scorn him and make sure he went to hell and stayed there forever...Unlike Jesus, Satan would not scorn him, but embrace him and give him solace, protection and understanding."

Once in Los Angeles, Richard initially stayed with his brother Ruben until the two of them had a falling out over Ruben's wife. Richard became a cocaine addict and supported himself by burglary. When he was stealing to support his habit, he sat around fantasizing about sadistic sexual relationships. He had no normal relationships with women. The only sex he had was with prostitutes.

Eventually, Richard started substituting P.C.P or "angel dust" for cocaine. It did nothing but deepen his aggressive and psychotic episodes. One day, he vented his aggression on another addict. He tied her up, ripped off her clothes and raped her several times, thrilled by his power over her. It was a profound moment in his fantasy life and he hungered for more.

At this time, Richard started reading about Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan in San Francisco. He felt compelled to join their rituals, but eventually shunned the organized cult and preferred to be what he termed a "lone practitioner." This belief in Satan was not just a whimsy, but a deep-seated belief in the power of Lucifer to protect and empower his disciples.

He tried to explain it to his sister when she visited him in L.A. and was alarmed at the changes in him.

"Why Satan, Richie?" she wanted to know.

"Because Satan represents what I feel. I'm not like other people. I'm different...I've got a trade. I'm a thief, Ruth...and a good one...I'm not going to any jail. I'm protected."

At the end of August, Richard was buying some coffee at a liquor store. He became aware of a couple of elderly Mexican women pointing at him. "El Matador," he heard one say -- "the killer."

Then he saw his face in the newspaper and ran out of the store, but the store owner had notified the police and cruisers were arriving from every direction. Everywhere he went, people recognized him immediately.

He tried to pull a woman out of her car, but was stopped by Carmello Robles and Arthur Benavedes. Richard jumped a fence and landed in the backyard of Luis Munoz who was grilling meat. Luis hit Richard and Richard went over the fence again. This time into the yard of Faustino Pinon, whose daughter's car was sitting in the driveway with the engine running.

"Get away, I'm taking the car. I have a gun and I'll kill you!"

Faustino grabbed Richard by the neck. "You are not taking this car." He grabbed the wheel of the car and steered it into the chimney.

Richard ran off and tried to take the car of Angela De La Torre, whose car was parked in front of her home. She saw him running at her and recognized him from the newspapers. When she refused to give him her keys, he punched her in the stomach. "El Matador!" she screamed.

Her husband Manuel heard her screams and understood immediately what was happening. He picked up a metal bar from his front gate, opened the door to the car and whacked Richard on the head. Richard escaped from the car and ran up the street with Manuel and others chasing him.

Manuel struck out at Richard again and missed, but the next time he was dead on and Richard went down. They held him there until the sheriff's deputies and LAPD arrived. The Night Stalker had been captured by the Mexican community.

Later, when he they put him in jail, Richard said to Sgt. George Thomas: "I want the electric chair. They should have shot me on the street. I did it, you know. You guys got me -- the Night Stalker. Hey, let me have a gun to play Russian roulette. I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison."

Salerno and Carrillo were exceptionally relieved to have Richard in custody, but then another break came their way. Richard's leather bag had been found at the bus terminal. Inside were the special .25-caliber shells that he had used on several of his victims.

The Trial

Phil Halpin from the Los Angeles district attorney's office was chosen to lead the prosecution of this very high profile case. He was a fine trial lawyer and felt confident that with the evidence and eye witness accounts that a conviction would be obtained. He believed that Ramirez deserved the gas chamber and was intent on making sure he got what was due him. He didn't see that Ramirez had much chance of using an insanity plea because the crimes were too well organized, planned and executed to convince any jury that he was insane.

From the very beginning of the legal proceedings, it was clear that both the press and the opposite sex were fascinated with Richard. His defiant, dangerous demeanor was thrilling to a growing number of groupies that were present at every public outing. He was inundated with letters, mostly from women who either thought he was innocent and wanted to help him or thought he was exciting and wanted sex with him. Satanists from all over made him their poster boy.

Philip Carlo describes the impact all of this attention had on Richard: "For the first time, he realized that to people like him, people of the night, he was a hero; he was somebody. He liked that. For his whole life he'd been a tall, lanky nobody, just another angry-eyed hungry face in a hungry crowd, but now people stopped -- people paid attention, stared and pointed....He figured no matter what he did they were going to convict him and kill him, so he decided to take control."

Richard had to stand in a lineup with five other men of similar build and coloring. Each man had to say "Don't look at me, bitch, or I'll kill you." There were so many witnesses and victims that they had to do the lineup a second time. Almost all of them picked out Richard from the lineup. Most of them were very shaken by having to see him again and hear him say that terrible command.

When the lineup was over, the victims were led to a room where all of the items taken from the home of Richard's fence were spread out on large tables. Some 2,000 items, mostly jewelry. They proceeded to identify their stolen goods.

The next time Richard was taken to the courthouse, he was angry and defiant, like a powerful wild animal in chains. Initially, Alan Adashek, a public defender, represented Richard. Richard planned to plead guilty, but Adashek was doing everything in his power to prevent that. Richard was enraged at suggestions that he try an insanity plea. He was following the dictates of his lord, Satan, and no intention of renouncing them to save his skin.

Finding a top notch defense lawyer for Richard was not in the cards. Marvin Belli declined, as did a couple other capable men. Richard finally insisted on having two fairly inexperienced lawyers, Arturo and Daniel Hernandez, represent him. Daniel felt they could win the case for Richard.

Despite the lack of experience in capital cases, Judge Soper allowed the Hernandez brothers to handle Richard's defense. In a show of defiant victory, Richard raised his hand up for the reporters to see. He had drawn a pentagram on the palm of his hand and shouted, "Hail, Satan!" It seemed almost like an admission of guilt, since the media had so heavily covered the fact that pentagrams had been found at the murder sites.

It took until March 6, 1986, for the scheduling of the preliminary hearing. When the sheriff's deputy described the mutilation of Maxine Zazzara and the removal of her eyes, Richard let out a frightening high-pitched cackle. It began to look as though Richard had reconsidered the insanity plea.

Deputy Jim Ellis was sworn in and described a statement that Richard had made to him in jail: "He stated that he killed twenty people in California, that he was a supercriminal, that no one could catch him until he fucked up. He said he left one fingerprint behind, and that's how he got caught. He made the statement that he went to San Francisco and killed Peter Pan....I told one lady to give me all her money. She said no. I cut her and pulled her eyes out..." The statements were admissible as evidence because they were voluntary and Richard had already been read his rights and had consulted with attorneys.

Richard plead not guilty to the mountain of charges against him.

The case was finally given to California Supreme Court Judge Michael Tynan in November of 1986 after the lawyers for the defense had succeeded in delaying the trial as much as possible. After many reschedulings, jury selection began on July 21, 1988, more than two years after the preliminary hearing. Finally, on January 10, 1989, a jury of six Hispanics and six Afro-Americans were sworn in along with twelve alternate jurors.

Halpin did an excellent job of presenting a very powerful case with much physical evidence and eye witness accounts. Richard's fingerprints, footprints, guns, face and voice identified him as the psychopath who brutally murdered, robbed and sexually assaulted men and women in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas.

Virtually everyone in the court was on the verge of tears as they listened to the particularly heartbreaking story that Somkid Khovananth told of being raped and humiliated in front of her young children and then finding her husband had been murdered. She pointed to Richard as the murderer. He laughed at her.

Shortly afterwards, the court heard an equally terrible story from Sakina Abowath who had been widowed and raped as Somkid had. She, also, was positive in her identification of Richard.

Deputy Daniel Laws was the final prosecution witness. He had guarded Richard in jail for more than a year. On October 30, Richard had called him over to his cell to show him photos of a homicide victim. Deputy Laws said, "The first picture was of a woman [Maxine Zazzara]. The photograph showed from the face down. She was nude. And the second photograph had the same woman lying on the bed with her head turned away from the camera."

"Did you ask him why he was showing you the pictures?" Prosecutor Halpin asked the deputy.

"Yes, I did."

"What did he say?"

"He [Richard] said, 'People come up here and call me a punk and I show them the photographs and tell them there is blood behind the Night Stalker and they go away all pale'."

Things were not going particularly well for the defense. On March 6, Daniel Hernandez admitted that he needed some expert help. With that in mind, he introduced Ray Clark, a very experienced trial lawyer. Clark did the best he could with an impossible situation where he had no input, cooperation or support from Richard.

The defense tried to throw doubt on the evidence and eye witness accounts on a case-by-case basis, but with almost no success. They did, however, have a few good cards. One was the alibi given to Richard by his father and several family friends: that Richard was in El Paso at the time of the Bell/Lang and Kyle assaults.

The other ace up their sleeve was alternate juror Cynthia Haden, who had developed an obvious crush on Richard. Eventually, Cynthia replaced one of the other jurors and the defense felt sure that she would not vote for conviction.

The jury began deliberations on July 26, but had been interrupted when one of the jurors had been murdered by her boyfriend. They reached a unanimous decision on September 20: Richard Ramirez was guilty on every one of the forty-six counts. On October 3, they had voted for the death penalty.

On the day of sentencing, Richard insisted reading a statement he had prepared. His voice was loud and angry: "You don't understand me. You are not expected to. You are not capable. I am beyond your experience. I am beyond good and evil. I will be avenged. Lucifer dwells in all of us...I don't believe in the hypocritical, moralistic dogma of this so-called civilized society....You maggots make me sick! Hypocrites one and all...I don't need to hear all of society's rationalizations. I've heard them all before...legions of the night, night breed, repeat not the errors of the night prowler and show no mercy."

Judge Tynan responded by giving Richard the death sentence nineteen times.

Afterwards

Today, Richard Ramirez is still waiting to serve the first of his nineteen death sentences. Appeals can take many years to exhaust. He currently lives on San Quentin's Death Row. He is not afraid of dying because -- as a devout Satanist --he believes that he will have an honored place in Satan's kingdom, along with Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper and others with similar accomplishments.

Richard has a great deal of time on his hands and uses it to read. His favorite subject is killers, particularly serial killers.

One of the women who stood by him through his trial and afterwards was Doreen Lioy who was twenty-five when Richard was captured. Unlike most of Richard's admirers, she is an intelligent, very literate woman who works as an editor for various magazines. She found him very attractive and wanted to protect him from unfair treatment. Over a period of years, their relationship deepened and they married in 1996.

Bibliography

There is only one author whose books on the Night Stalker are still in print, but his books are very detailed and thorough. The Crime Library recommends Philip Carlo's Night Stalker: The Life and Crimes of Richard Ramirez. 1996

Carlo has also produced a 2-cassette audio package which includes a fascinating interview with Ramirez on his theories, beliefs, drug abuse problem and what it is like to live on Death Row. The audio tapes are titled Night Stalker.

Another book on the Night Stalker and Ramirez is Night StalkerNight Stalker by Clifford L. Linedecker. It is not particularly easy to find.

Good sources of information on the murders are the contemporary issues of the Los Angeles Times, which are frequently available on microfilm at major public and university libraries, and the Los Angeles Herald Examiner.
RICHARD RAMIREZ

Late in the 20th Century, Hell glutted on humanity. Its first bloodletting of that season of the Devil occurred on the warm evening of June 28, 1984, when an earth-bound Lucifer found his way into the small Glassel Park apartment of 79-year-old Jennie Vincow. Throughout the Los Angeles area a damp humidity had oppressed the air that day, and when the evening came and the temperature slightly cooled, Jennie left her window open to invite what little breeze there might be into her flat. Like a fallen leaf, decayed and tossed from its source, a fallen angel, dark, angry and also decaying, blew across the sill of that open window. When the demon departed through that same window, he left behind Jennie Vincow, raped, beaten and nearly decapitated.

"Her body was found by her son, who lived above her ground-floor apartment, just south of...Forest Lawn Park," reports the Los Angeles Times . "Her throat had been slashed and she had been stabbed repeatedly."

The police were baffled. But, in the months to come, they were to encounter a madman whose lust for killing and depravity equaled, if not surpassed, that of Jack the Ripper or, more contemporary, the Hillside Strangler. Soon to be named the "Night Stalker" by the press, this madman bore, according to true crime author Richard L. Linedecker, "the horror in his soul of a Stephen King or a Clive Barker fright novel ? and more." A Freddy Kruger. For real.

Less than a year later, the monster reappeared. This time, he waited in the shadows of an upscale condominium outside LA. The date was March 17, 1985, time 11:30 p.m., when pretty-faced Maria Hernandez pulled her auto into the security garage, unaware the monster was watching her from behind a pillar. When she alighted from her car, the killer stepped from the darkness, gun upraised and, despite her pleadings, he pressed the trigger. She stumbled. And the killer, thinking she was dead, stepped over her to enter the side door of the condo. But, Maria had been lucky ? very lucky ? for the bullet had deflected off the car keys she held in her hand, causing a hand wound, but nothing more.

Inside the building, Maria's roommate was less fortunate. For, when Maria finally made her way to the safety of her place, breathless, she discovered that her friend, Dayle Okazaki, had also encountered the killer. And this time, his bullet had found its mark. Thirty-three-year-old Okazaki lay in a pool of her own blood, her skull smashed by a missile fired at extremely close range.

The demon vanished just as quickly as he had appeared. The police were stumped.

All they knew of him was what Hernandez was able to tell them: He was tall, gaunt, dark, maybe Hispanic.

This time, the killer didn't wait nearly a year to murder again. He struck within the hour. His next victim that same evening was petite Taiwanese-born Tsai-Lian Yu, who, driving her yellow Chevrolet down North Alhambra Avenue in nearby Monterey Park, withered when someone with the eyes of a madman forced his way into her car and shot her. He had thrown his own car into idle, simply entered hers, pushed her onto the pavement, called her bitch, then blew her into eternity at point-blank range.

Fast. Neat. Clean.

Then dematerialized into the darkness from whence he came.

Child's play.

The police were beginning to realize they might have a problem on their hands, but they remained stumped. Eyewitnesses who thought they had seen the killer described him as tall, gaunt, dark, maybe Hispanic.

Ten days later, this elusive phantom -- whose physical description could fit any one of thousands of males in the Greater Los Angeles area -- required more blood. This time, shooting his prey didn't quite satisfy the urge; the demon must have been hungry, he must have been frantic, for when he entered the home of the sleeping Zazzara couple, he produced a bloodbath.

The couple's bodies were discovered by their son the following morning. Vincent Zazzara had been shot in the head as he dozed on the sofa. He had died quickly -- unlike his wife who suffered the percussion of the killer's frenzy. On her face he had carved the embodiment of his hate, molding her physicality into something representative of how he viewed humankind ? as something made to splice and cut and gouge, to bend, to twist, to reshape to suit his own wantonness.

Clifford L. Linedecker, in his well-researched Night Stalker , describes what the police found at the crime scene: "They (the police) would never forget the sight of Maxine Zazzara's mutilated face. Her eyes were gouged out, and the empty sockets were ringed with blackened gobs of blood and tissue...The killer had plunged a knife through her left breast, leaving a large, ragged T-shaped wound. There were other cruel injuries to her neck, face, abdomen, and around the pubic area. She had been butchered..."

Investigators found footprints ? visible signs of a tennis shoe -- in the service area and in the flowerbed ? indicating his means of entry into the Zazzara home. There were no witnesses this time around, but a modus operandi was becoming loosely apparent. Nevertheless stumped, the law determined to put an end to this savage that had crawled up from the mud up and within their midst. That they believed this latest crime to have been committed by the same creature that had slain Vincow, Okazaki and Yu was, at this point, not much more than a hunch. But, if they were correct, the madman was becoming bolder and more sanguine; an inner lust seemed to be growing and, now fed and apparently well fed, who knows what would come next! Scouring the neighborhoods where he had already struck, blue uniforms questioned strangers, stopped midnight strollers, clambered for witnesses. But, there proved little to go on.

Deep inside, the police feared, he ?It! ? would strike again.

Tension of the wait was short. Elderly Harold and Jean Wu did not hear the intruder slipping into their residence through a window at pre-dawn, May 14. The first intimation Mrs. Wu had of his presence was the loud bang that stirred her awake. She woke to find the figure, smoking gun in hand, standing over her. Beside her, husband Harold groaned, shot in the head. Then ? the killer's huge fists unloosened on the woman. He pummeled her, slapped her, kicked her, and demanded that she turn over loose cash to him. Binding her hands together behind her with thumbscrews, he tossed her across her bed over her dying spouse, then rampaged through the home's drawers and cabinets for money. Terrified, lying on her mattress, Jean Wu could hear three things ? Harold's furtive gasps for life, furniture being invaded, and the madman's curses as he found nothing of great value.

Having rampaged through their belongings, the tall, thin, dark man returned to the Wu's bedroom and, as she lay across her fading husband, violently raped the 63-year-old woman. Satisfied, he zippered up, grinning. Then left. Another trophy his.

Mrs. Wu, after recovering from shock, told police her attacker was tall, gaunt, dark, Hispanic.

The symphony of terror played on, its next discordant notes sounded in the dark hours before May 30, at the home of attractive 41-year-old Ruth Wilson. The woman awoke in her bed to the blinding beam of a flashlight and the distinct silhouette of a pistol barrel across her gaze; behind the illumination a gruff voice demanded, "Where's your money?" Before she could muster words, the intruder yanked her by the sleeve of her negligee off her bed and led her to her 12-year-old son's room down the hall. Using the frightened boy as bait, he insisted that she produce something of value. She told him where an expensive piece of jewelry was hidden. He seemed satisfied as he studied the diamond necklace in his hands, and Wilson figured he would abscond without harming her or her boy.

She was wrong.

Locking her son in a closet, he took his pent-up emotions out on the woman in the pink negligee who stood before him. Shoving her back to her own bedroom, he tore her gown off her and, despite her protestations, had his way with her. First he bound her hands behind her with a pair of pantyhose, then fell upon her. As he raped and sodomized her, his foul breath and body odor overcame and sickened her, adding to the humiliation.

Miraculously, he let her live. He was gone...all but in her night dreams that would haunt her over and over and over for months to come.

When the police later interviewed her, she gave her description of the devil:

He was tall, gaunt, dark, definitely Hispanic.

In 1978, eighteen-year-old Ricardo Leyva a.k.a. "Richard" Ramirez moved to southern California from El Paso , Texas , his hometown. He'd dropped out of the ninth grade and had been living the life of a slacker, smoking marijuana and living on convenience store junk food, according to UPI reporters Aurelio Rojas and K. Mack Sisk. His diet was so rich in sugar, his teeth eventually started to rot, which made his breath foul and offensive, buthis halitosis fit in with the demonic personality he was intentionally cultivating. His habitual pot-smoking led to several arrests for possession as well as a misdemeanor theft charge. In California he was twice arrested for auto theft, in Pasadena in 1981 and Los Angeles in 1984.

Michael D. Harris, reporting for UPI, wrote that years later his father would maintain that Richard was a "good boy" whose marijuana consumption "put him out of control," but it would be hard to pinpoint exactly what influences sent Richard Ramirez in the direction of devil worship. He often drew the five-point pentagram, the symbol of the devil, on his own body, and at his trial he would shout "Hail Satan!" in open court. He was a big fan of rock bands who sang about Satanism, particularly the Australian heavy-metal band AC/DC whose album, Highway to Hell, was Ramirez's absolute favorite. One song on that album, "Night Prowler," contains the lyrics, "Was that a noise outside your window?/ What's that shadow on the blind?/ As you lie there naked like a body in a tomb/ suspended animation as I slip into your room..." But it's hard to believe that rock songs and marijuana alone would turn a misdirected youth into one of the most heinous serial rapists and murderers in modern history.

The turning point in Ramirez's life might well have been the night he witnessed his cousin Mike murder his wife. Mike had fought as a Green Beret in Vietnam , but the war had changed him. After he'd returned home, he boasted of torturing and mutilating the enemy, and had brought back Polaroids to prove it. He and his thirteen-year-old cousin Richard would hang out all day, getting high, which is just what they were doing when Mike's wife started to nag him about getting his life together and finding a job. To shut her up, Mike pulled out a gun and shot her in the face, killing her. Author Philip Carlo, speaking on CNBC's Rivera Live, revealed that Ramirez was spattered with the woman's blood. Mike's lawyer pointed to the incredible stress of his horrible war experiences as a mitigating factor. He was ultimately convicted, but the judge was lenient in his sentencing. Mike had been a big influence on Richard, who became fascinated with the horrible photographs of Mike's war victims. It was after the murder of Mike's wife that Richard, the epileptic youngest child in a family of three boys and two sisters, started skipping school and smoking pot as much as he could every day. He soon took to stealing to support his drug use .

The police have no evidence that Richard Ramirez killed at anytime before he reached Los Angeles , and little is known about his activities in the first few years he lived there. . No doubt his crimes were escalating during this period. Simple theft led him to breaking and entering, and eventually he must have become adept at it. Initially he probably stole whatever valuables he could find, then quickly left before he was caught. But as he grew more proficient, he also grew bolder, staying longer in the houses that he burglarized. Perhaps he stayed to watch the inhabitants sleeping in their beds. Perhaps he took souvenirs, particularly items that belonged to the female residents. Like his cousin Mike, he might have even taken photographs that he could relish later. This no doubt excited him and helped him develop the depraved fantasies that took over his thinking.

But eventually he felt compelled to do more. The horrible scenes that ran through his mind like a horror movie on a continuous loop weren't satisfying him anymore. They had to emerge from his mind and become reality. When Richard Ramirez finally crossed that line and started to play out his fantasies, the Night Stalker was born. Whether by conscious decision or inevitable evolution, Ramirez began to insert himself into his depraved fantasies and actively participate in their reenactment for his own gratification.

His first known victim was a seventy-nine-year old Glassel Park resident named Jennie Vincow. On June 28, 1984 , she had apparently left a window open because it had been hot that evening. Ramirez simply removed the screen and climbed in. Vincow's son, who lived in the apartment over her ground floor apartment, discovered her body sprawled out on the bed. She had been stabbed repeatedly, and her throat was slashed so savagely she was nearly decapitated. The intruder also ransacked her apartment and helped himself to her valuables. Fingerprints were recovered from the window sill, and the autopsy revealed signs of sexual assault. The Night Stalker's fantasy had finally become reality.

It would be eight months before he struck again.

No doubt Richard Ramirez, like most budding serial killers, fed off the memory of his first victim, reliving the experience of rape and murder over and over again in his mind. If he had taken what criminal profilers call a souvenir ?a hair brush, a piece of underwear, eyeglasses, any object intimately connect with the victim?he might have used that to stoke his recollections and help him elaborate on his fantasy. But eventually the mental reenactment of that initial crime wouldn't be as satisfying as it had once been. The killer would need a new experience to replenish the fantasy. He might have tried to control himself for a period, but the pressure within him was mounting. Eventually he would give in to his compulsion and do it again.

On March 17, 1985 , at 11:30 p.m. , twenty-year-old Angela Barrios was just returning home from a long day at work. She lived in a condominium that she shared with a roommate in Rosemead , a middle-class town north-east of Los Angeles . She pulled her car into the driveway and opened the garage door with a remote control. She was tired and hadn't had dinner yet. All she wanted to do was get inside and unwind. But as she got out of her car, she heard something behind her. A dark figure suddenly rushed up to her. He was tall and dressed entirely in black. A navy blue baseball cap was pulled down low over his brow. He was holding a gun.

He pointed the gun in her face, holding it just inches from her nose. She pleaded with him not to kill her. She tried not to look at his face, hoping that he might spare her, but she couldn't help but look. His eyes were cold and hard.

She continued to beg for mercy, but he ignored her?perhaps he was angered by her pleading?and he pulled the trigger. The sound of the gunshot was like an explosion in the enclosed garage. Angela collapsed on the concrete floor. She was alive but too afraid to move. The gunman stepped over her and went to the door that led to her condo, kicking her body out of the way so he could open it.

Angela lay perfectly still, playing dead. After a while?she didn't know how long?she realized that her hand was bleeding. Her keys were still in that hand. She'd raised her hands instinctively when the man had menaced her with the gun, and the bullet had miraculously hit the keys and ricocheted away. Angela collected herself and got to her feet. She had started to run out of the garage when she heard another gunshot behind her. She kept running, just hoping to escape, but she ran into the man in black as he was coming out the front door of her condo.

She tried to get away from him, but her legs were shaky. She stumbled back toward her car in the garage, convinced that he was going to finish her off. But instead of pursuing her, the man shoved the gun into his belt and fled. Angela Barrios was saved from this madman.

Her roommate, Dayle Okazaki, age 34, wasn't so lucky. Angela found her face down on the kitchen floor in a pool of her own blood. There was blood everywhere, on the walls, furniture and appliances. Angela ran to her side to check for signs of life, but Okazaki had been shot through the forehead. Angela grabbed the phone and called 911. Later, when the police searched the crime scene, they found the killer's baseball cap in the garage.

What exactly happened inside the condominium is unknown, but for some reason killing Dayle Okazaki was apparently not the experience Richard Ramirez had hoped for. Incredibly, that same night he struck again in nearby Monterey Park .

According to author Clifford L. Linedecker, a policeman was dispatched to investigate an empty yellow Chevrolet parked with its motor running. The transmission was in reverse; the car parked behind it was keeping it from moving any farther. When the officer got out of his patrol car to check inside the car, he found an unconscious woman lying on the ground nearby. The officer ran to her and immediately checked her vital signs. He noticed that her stockings were ripped, and there was an ugly bruise on her leg. She was alive, but just barely. He ran back to his car and radioed for an ambulance. When he returned to the woman, he discovered a metal medallion and a torn section of a twenty-dollar bill on the pavement. He tried to revive her, hoping she could tell him what had happened, but her breathing was labored. He could tell she was in trouble and needed immediate medical attention, but in the dim light he hadn't noticed that she had been shot several times. The woman, a thirty-year-old Taiwanese native named Tsia-Lian Yu, who was known to her friends as Victoria , died before the ambulance arrived.

The killer was in a frenzy. Killing Dayle Okazaki had not satisfied his need, so on the spur of the moment, he had attacked Tsia-Lian Yu. But murdering and assaulting her might not have done it for him because three days later he murdered an eight-year-old girl in Eagle Rock, California .

A week later, on March 27, 1984 , he emerged again, and this time he found an MO that worked for him.

On the morning of March 27, 1984 , Peter Zazzara arrived at his parents' home in Whittier , California . His sixty-four-year old father Vincent had retired from investment counseling and now operated his own pizzeria. His mother Maxine, 44, was an attorney. Peter rang the bell several times, but no one answered, so he let himself in. What he found was horrifying.

His father's body was on the sofa in the den. He'd been shot through the left temple. He appeared to have died instantly.

Mrs. Zazzara was found stretched out in bed, face up and naked. Her eyes had been gouged out, the bloody sockets empty. She'd been stabbed repeatedly around the face, neck, abdomen, and groin. There was a large T-shaped knife wound in her left breast. An autopsy later revealed that like her husband, she'd first been shot in the head and had probably died instantly. The stabbing and mutilation were done post-mortem. The house had been ransacked, valuables taken.

With these killings, Richard Ramirez had discovered a method that accomplished his goals and satisfied his fantasy, for he repeated it many times: Dispatch the male quickly to get him out of the way so that he could have his perverse way with the woman in the house. The man was just an impediment and not part of the fantasy; the woman was the real object of desire.

Six weeks later Richard Ramirez returned to Monterey Park and broke into the home of Harold and Jean Wu, waking them from a sound sleep. Ramirez took care of Mr. Wu first, shooting the sixty-six-year-old man through the head. He pummeled Mrs. Wu, 63, viciously with his fists, demanding to know where she kept her money. She was too worried about her husband to be coherent, so he bound her hands together behind her back with thumb cuffs to keep her still as he searched the house. After he found what he wanted, he returned to the bedroom, dragged the tiny woman to the side of the bed, and raped her. When he was finished, he left.

Mr. Wu, however, was not dead. Despite his terrible head wound, he managed to crawl to the den where he dialed 911. He was unable to tell the dispatcher what the problem was, but the call was traced, and an ambulance and patrol car were dispatched to the Wu's address . Harold Wu was rushed to the hospital but died later that night. Jean Wu was treated for her injuries. She was able to give the police a physical description of her attacker.

Two weeks later on May 30, Ruth Wilson, 41, was awakened in the middle of the night by a flashlight shining in her face. Ramirez had silently broken into her Burbank home and was holding a gun to her head. He ordered her to get out of bed and go to her twelve-year-old son's room. Ramirez jumped on the boy's bed and put the gun to the child's head, warning Ruth Wilson not to make a sound. He handcuffed the boy and locked him in a closet.

"Don't look at me," he snarled at Ruth. "If you look at me again, I'll shoot you."

Assuming that he was a burglar, she offered to give him her most valuable possession, a gold-and-diamond necklace. She led him to the dresser in her bedroom where she kept it, hoping that this would placate him. But it didn't. After rummaging through the house, he ordered her to turn around and put her hands together. He tied her up behind her back with a pair of pantyhose. He then shoved her onto the bed as she pleaded with him. After tearing off her pink nightgown, he raped and sodomized her. His breath was so hot and foul as he lay on her she nearly gagged.

According to Clifford L. Linedecker in his book Nightstalker, Ruth Wilson told Ramirez he must have had a "very unhappy life" to have done this to her. He told her she looked pretty good for her age and said he was going to let her live even though he had killed many others. When she complained that the pantyhose around her wrists were cutting off her circulation, he loosened them for her and brought her a robe before taking her son out of the closet and handcuffing them side by side. Ramirez left them there. Later the boy was able to get to a phone and call 911. When the police asked Ruth describe her attacker, she told them that he was a tall Hispanic with long dark hair.

The attacks continued, throwing the city of Los Angeles into a state of panic. One police official referred to the killer-rapist as the "Valley Intruder." The newspapers dubbed him the "Midnight Stalker," conjuring up images of a modern-day Dracula or Jack the Ripper. But Ramirez was just getting started. In the spring of 1985 he was going through a period of escalation. By the summer he was on a full-blown rampage.

On May 29, Malvia Keller, 83, and her invalid sister Blanche Wolfe, 80, were found in Keller's Monrovia home. Both women had been beaten so severely with a hammer that when the police found it, the handle was split. Blanche had a puncture wound above one ear. An inverted pentagram with the tip pointing down had been drawn in lipstick on Malvia's inner thigh. A second pentagram was found on the bedroom wall over Blanche's comatose body. Ramirez had apparently tried to rape Malvia, the older sister. Police experts estimated that the sisters had been there about two days after the attack before being discovered. Doctors were able to revive Blanche, but Malvia soon died of her injuries.

One month later, on June 27 the Night Stalker raped a six-year-old girl in Arcadia .

A day later the body of thirty-two-year-old Patty Elaine Higgins was found in her Arcadia home, her throat slit.

Five days later on July 2, the body of seventy-five-year old Mary Louise Cannon was found in her Arcadia home. Like Patty Higgins, she had been beaten, her throat slit. The house had been ransacked.

On July 5 Ramirez returned to Arcadia beat sixteen-year-old Deidre Palmer savagely with a tire iron. She survived her injuries.

Two days later on July 7, the body of Joyce Lucille Nelson was found in her home in Monterey Park . The sixty-one-year-old had been beaten to death with a blunt object.

Later that same night in Monterey Park , Linda Fortuna, a sixty-three-year-old registered nurse, was awakened at around 3:30 a.m. by a "tall, bony man dressed in black." The man, who fit the description of Night Stalker, was pointing a gun at her. He ordered her out of bed and into the bathroom, warning her to be quiet. After ransacking the house, he returned to her, forcing her back onto her bed. He attempted to rape and sodomize her but could not maintain an erection. He was frustrated and humiliated, and she was sure he would kill her. He screamed at her furiously, but then gathered up the valuables he wanted and left. She was astounded that he had spared her life.

Less than two weeks later, on July 20, the Night Stalker chose a new location in the Los Angeles area, Glendale . Maxson Kneiling and his wife Lela, both 66, were found in their bed, both shot in the head and horribly slashed with a knife. Maxson had been butchered so brutally his head was barely attached to his body. Police experts had difficulty recreating the attack based on the evidence. It's possible that the Stalker killed them both quickly with his gun, then mutilated them post-mortem. But given his developing MO, it's also possible that he kept Mrs. Kneiling alive to play out his perverse fantasy.

But he also might have failed to perform sexually with Mrs. Kneiling, just as he had with Linda Fortuna, and so he turned July 20 into a double header, striking again, this time in Sun Valley . Chitat Assawahem, 32, was shot in his sleep. His wife Sakima, 29, was raped, forced to perform oral sex on the intruder, then beaten mercilessly. He then sodomized the couple's eight-year-old son. Ramirez tied Mrs. Assawahem in her bedroom and left, but not before taking $30,000 in cash and jewelry.

On August 6, Ramirez targeted another couple, Christopher and Virginia Petersen, ages 38 and 27. Following his pattern, Ramirez broke into the Petersen's Northridge bedroom and shot them both in the head. But they didn't die. In fact, Mr. Petersen, a powerfully built truck driver, got out of bed and chased the intruder away despite having a bullet lodged in his brain. Miraculously, the Petersens survived their wounds.

Two nights after the attack on the Petersens, Ramirez lashed out again, this time in Diamond Bar , California , and this time he had it his way. Ahmed Zia, 35, was shot in the head and killed while he slept. With the husband out of the way, Ramirez was free to play out his fantasy with Zia's wife, Suu Kyi Zia, 28. The Night Stalker raped her, sodomized her, and forced her to perform fellatio on him. This was Ramirez's MO played out the way he liked it, and the experts who profiled him believed that this was the way he would attack again and again, probably adding a little something more each time, a new perversion, a twist on an old predilection, and most likely increasing the physical brutality.

Los Angeles County was terrified. The Night Stalker's crimes were becoming more frequent. The cooling-off periods were shortening, and his rage was escalating. There was little doubt that he would strike again. The only question was where and when. But as it turned out, Ramirez decided to abandon his familiar territory. After the attack on the Zias, he headed north.

On August 18, 1985 , Peter and Barbara Pan were found in their blood-soaked bed in Lake Merced , a suburb of San Francisco . Both had been shot in the head. Mr. Pan, a sixty-six-year-old accountant, was pronounced dead at the scene. Mrs. Pan, 64, survived but would be an invalid for the rest of her life. Scrawled on the wall in lipstick were an inverted pentagram and the words "Jack the Knife," which is from a song called "The Ripper" by the heavy-metal band, Judas Priest. Local police determined that the killer had come in through an open window. Fearing that L.A. 's Night Stalker had moved to their precinct, homicide investigators sent a bullet removed from Mr. Pan to a forensic team in Los Angeles . The bullet matched others recovered from two of the Night Stalker's Los Angeles County crime scenes.

Police in San Francisco searched their unsolved homicide files and came up with two incidents that fit the Stalker's MO. On February 20, 1985 , sisters Mary and Christina Caldwell, ages 70 and 50, had been stabbed to death in their Telegraph Hill apartment. If this was indeed the work of the Night Stalker, he had committed this crime about a month before the night he killed Dale Okazaki and Tsai-Lian Yu and wounded Angela Barrios.

The police also discovered that on June 2, the day after the murders of the elderly sisters Blanche Wolfe and Malvia Keller, Theodore Wildings, 25, was shot in the head while he slept in his apartment in the Cow Hollow section of San Francisco . His girlfriend, Nancy Brien, 25, was then brutally raped by the killer.

Could the Night Stalker have been active in San Francisco as well as Los Angeles throughout 1985 and the police in San Francisco didn't realize it?

Panic spread through the city by the Bay. To quell fears, Mayor Diane Feinstein talked publicly about the hunt for the Night Stalker, but in so doing angered detectives by giving away too many details of his crimes, thus impeding their investigation. They did not want a repeat of the situation Los Angeles had just gone through. Fifteen unanswered attacks, including fourteen murders and five rapes, had been committed by a maddeningly elusive perpetrator.

But the San Francisco police caught a break when the manager of a flophouse in the Tenderloin district came forward and claimed that a young man who fit the Stalker's description had stayed at his establishment from time to time over the past year and a half. The manager remembered that the man had rotten teeth and smelled badly. The police check the room he had last stayed in. On the bathroom door they found a drawn pentagram. The man had checked out during the day on August 17. Mr. and Mrs. Pan had been attacked that night.

Investigators then located a man from the El Sobrante district who said he had purchased some jewelry?a diamond ring and a pair of cufflinks?from a young man who fit the Stalker's description. Further investigation revealed that these items had belonged to Mr. Pan.

On August 24, while the police in San Francisco were scrambling to find the mysterious young man with rotten teeth, the Night Stalker had found another couple whom he could use to play out his violent fantasy?except this couple was not in the Bay Area. They were asleep in bed in Mission Viejo , fifty miles south of Los Angeles .

A computer engineer and his 29-year-old fianc?had just drifted off to sleep when they were suddenly awakened by loud gunshots in the room. Instinctively she reached out to her fiance, but he had been seriously wounded. Before she realized what was happening, the intruder grabbed her by the hair and hauled her into another bedroom where he tied her ankles and wrists with neckties. The man then asked her if she knew who he was, admitting that he was the killer who was getting all the coverage in the press and on television. He rummaged through the house, looking for valuables, but there was nothing small enough to steal easily. Angry that the couple had so little, he returned to her and raped her, not once but twice. The horrible stink of his breath made her gag.

The man was still angry that there was nothing worth stealing. Afraid of what he might do next, she told him to look in a drawer where she knew her fiance kept some money.

"Swear to Satan," he bellowed at her.

Out of fright, she did what he wanted and swore to Satan that she was telling the truth. The Stalker found the money, and as he counted it, he mocked her, telling her that this was what she was worth. It was what saved her, he said.

She prayed that this was the end of it, that he would just leave now that he had the cash. But he wasn't through with her yet.

"Swear your love for Satan," he demanded.

Afraid of what he might do next, she did as he asked. "I love Satan," she mumbled.

He ordered her to say it again and again. He yanked her by the hair and made her kneel, then forced her to perform oral sex on him. When he was finished, he stepped back and stared at her. Still bound by the neckties, she was certain that he was going to shoot her just as he had shot her fianc? But he didn't. He laughed at her, then suddenly he was gone.

She quickly worked herself free of the neckties and went to the window in time to see him getting into an old orange-colored Toyota station wagon. She immediately called 911.

Earlier that night a teenager who had been working on his motorcycle in his parents' garage had noticed the orange Toyota driving into the neighborhood, and he noticed it again as it was leaving. It struck him as suspicious, so he jotted down the license plate number. The next morning he called the police about the car.

With the plate number, the police were able to determine that the 1976 orange Toyota had been stolen in L.A.'s Chinatown while the owner was dining at a restaurant. An alert was put out for the car, and two days later it was located in the Rampart section of Los Angeles . The police kept the car under surveillance for nearly 24 hours in the hope that the Night Stalker would return for it, but he didn't.

A forensics team scoured the car for evidence and came up with one good fingerprint which they sent to Sacramento for analysis. Hours later the computer had found a match. The print belonged to Ricardo "Richard" Leyva Ramirez. Further analysis revealed that this print matched a print taken from a window sill at the Pans' house near San Francisco . At long last the police knew who their suspect was. Now they had to find him before he struck again.

Seven days after the attack on the computer engineer and his fiancee in Mission Viejo, Ramirez was on the prowl for another vehicle he could steal. Unfortunately for him, he chose the wrong neighborhood to go "shopping" for cars. The 3700 block of East Hubbard Street in Los Angeles is in a largely Hispanic area. Perhaps Ramirez felt that he would blend in there. But he had no idea how fiercely these residents would protect their property.

Ramirez's first mistake was trying to steal Faustino Pinon's prized red Mustang. Ramirez, who was wearing a black Jack Daniels tee shirt, had been hopping fences between yards, searching for a car he could steal easily. He'd been chased off the property next door to Pinon's home and wound up in Pinon's yard. Ramirez must have thought luck was with him because the Mustang parked in the driveway was unlocked and the keys were in the ignition. He jumped in and started the engine. But he hadn't noticed that the car's owner was underneath the car on his back working on the transmission.

As soon as Pinon, 56, heard the engine starting, he rolled out from under the car. Incensed that anyone would dare touch his prized possession, Pinon reached through the window and grabbed Ramirez around the neck.

"I've got a gun," Ramirez warned, but Pinon didn't care. No one was going to take his car.

Ramirez put the car into gear and tried to drive away, but Pinon wouldn't let go of him. The car crashed into a fence, then into the garage. Pinon got the door open, hauled Ramirez out, and threw him to the ground.

Ramirez scrambled to his feet and ran across the street just as twenty-eight-year-old Angelina de la Torres was getting into her Ford Granada. He ran up to her car and stuck his head through the driver's window, demanding that she give him the keys, threatening in Spanish to kill her if she didn't. She screamed for help, and her husband Manuel, 32, came running from the backyard. According to Nancy Skelton in the Los Angeles Times, he grabbed a length of metal fence post as he passed through the gate along the side of the house.

In the meantime Jose Burgoin, who had heard the ruckus in Faustino Pinon's driveway, had called the police. He ran outside to help Pinon, and when he heard Angelina scream, he called to his sons? Jaime, 21, and Julio, 17?to come quick. As the brothers ran to help Mrs. De la Torres, they saw the skinny stranger scrambling across the front seat of her car. Jaime recognized him from photographs that had been published in the newspapers and broadcast on television. He yelled that this was the killer, the Night Stalker!

The men made a mad dash to catch him. Ramirez ran for his life, but Manuel de la Torres caught up with him and hit him across the neck with the three-and-a- half-foot metal post. Ramirez kept running, but de la Torres stayed on him, whacking him repeatedly from behind. Jaime Burgoin caught up with Ramirez and punched him. Ramirez stumbled and fell but quickly got up and continued running with de la Torres and the Burgoin brothers on his heels.

Then unexpectedly Ramirez stopped and faced them. His eyes flashed as he laughed and stuck out his tongue at them. He was playing the part of the madman, but his pursuers were taken aback for only a moment. They lunged at him, and the chase continued. Finally, a block away from where it all began, de la Torres swung hard and hit Ramirez on the head. The Night Stalker collapsed to the ground. Jaime and Jose Burgoin closed in on him to keep him down until the police arrived. One day after Richard Ramirez's face was made public, the Night Stalker was in custody and behind bars.

Upon his arrest, Ramirez, 26, was charged with fourteen murders and thirty-one other felonies related to his 1985 murder, rape and robbery spree. A fifteenth murder in San Francisco also hung over his head, with the potential for a trial in Orange County for rape and attempted murder.

Early in the case, two public defenders were appointed to Richard Ramirez, but he disliked them. Another defense attorney came and went before the Ramirez family retained Daniel and Arturo Hernandez (not related). They had never before tried a death penalty case, but had worked together on homicide cases. Their presentation wasn't helped much when at the arraignment in October 1985, Ramirez flashed a pentagram drawn on his palm and shouted, "Hail Satan!"

Apparently this kind of behavior raised anxiety levels, because on another occasion when the courtroom lights suddenly went out, the deputy marshals drew their pistols and told everyone to hit the floor. They then dragged Ramirez out of the courtroom.

The Hernandezes began their long list of pre-trial motions by filing for a change of venue, insisting that the adverse publicity in Los Angeles County had infected the entire community, and hence, the jury pool. Ramirez could not receive a fair trial, they claimed, because many middleclass people in the area had an image embedded in their consciousness of the Night Stalker breaking into their homes. In fact, a survey they had done indicated that 93% of 300 people polled had heard about Ramirez, and the majority believed that he was guilty.

On January 10, 1987 , the Los Angeles Times * reported the decision in this thirteen-day hearing?a taste of things to come. Judge Dion Morrow said that given the substantial pool of potential jurors in the county, he did not believe that argument was sound. "This is the largest community, I think," he stated, "of any court system in the country." As Ramirez was led in chains from the courtroom, he grinned at his growing coterie of female supporters. Some believed in his innocence. Others just thought he was cute.

In another hearing, Judge Elva Soper granted a request for a gag order on both sides.

By May, a trial date was set for the end of September. That proved to be highly optimistic. This case was going to spread into other states and even Mexico , seeking witnesses and evidence. The defense team would also introduce an exhausting round of delays, from appeals to out-of-town interviews to outright disappearances.

Ramirez actually testified in pre-trial proceedings, clad in a three-piece gray suit and red tie. He denied that he had spontaneously told Sergeant Ed Esqueda upon his August 31 arrest, "I did it, you know. You guys got me, the Stalker." His lawyers said that the officer had not recorded the statements and they wanted them stricken. Superior Court Judge Michael Tynan, who would sit for the trial, denied the motion. (Sergeant George Thomas would later testify at the trial that he wrote down that Ramirez had said, "Of course I did it. So what? Shoot me. I deserve to die." Then he had hummed a tune called "Night Prowler.")

Other than that appearance, Ramirez sat through most of his numerous hearings, slouching in his chair, drumming his fingers on the table, and bobbing his head as if listening to rock music. He seemed oblivious to the seriousness of the charges.

When the Hernandezes insisted throughout the final months of 1987 that they needed more time to prepare, the trial date was moved to February. They considered buying more time by pursuing the Orange County trial first.

In November, to avoid an extra trial, one murder and one felony count were dismissed. All the prosecution had for the murder was the delayed statement of a witness who had spotted Ramirez a block from the crime scene. Then Judge Tynan also said that he would not allow Ramirez to leave the county, which meant he could not be arraigned in Orange County . The defense attorneys, seeking another ploy, prepared to ask for at least six separate trials to avoid having cases with little good evidence become stronger by association with those that had it.

By January, it appeared that the trial for case # A 7771272 would be postponed another six months, because an appellate court required that the prosecution team supply defense attorneys with records of all crimes over a period of six months in Los Angeles County of a "similar nature" to those of Ramirez. This was a move by the Hernandezes to link some of those that Ramirez was charged with to other cases and possibly other offenders. Prosecutor Phil Halpin called this an "onerous burden" for the cops and asked the court to reconsider. Both sides took it to the state Supreme Court, which would not hear it.

In March, San Francisco authorities had tentatively linked Ramirez to four homicides, a rape, and ten burglaries, but since they had no physical evidence in most of those crimes, they had narrowed their focus to one killing (Peter Pan), one attempted murder (Pan's wife), and a burglary that had yielded evidence that led to discovering Ramirez's last name. They were awaiting the conclusion of the LA trial to decide on a date.

In July, as the case neared three years since the arrest, the Times reported that Ramirez had decided against entering a plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. The judge ordered jury selection to begin. The paper quoted the judge as estimating (correctly) that this alone could take six to eight months. The Hernandezes had sought to have Tynan disqualified based on prejudice against their client. They did not succeed, but once again they claimed they needed more time to prepare.

Impatient with the defense motions (mostly to suppress evidence) that numbered to nearly one hundred, LA County prosecutor Phil Halpin finalized his case and filed the charges, taking the defense by surprise. He claimed he had nearly 1,000 potential witnesses and hundreds of thousands of pages of statements, reports, and photographs. Admitting that it was one of the "most complicated criminal cases" he had seen, he projected a two-year-period for the trial. Thus far, the case had cost over one million dollars and one witness had already died.

The defense asked for yet another extension, but it was time to begin.

On July 21, 1988 , jury selection began. (At the same time in Orange County , the jury was being selected for the trial of Randy Kraft, accused of killing sixteen young men.) Judge Tynan decided that they would need twelve jurors and twelve alternates, all of whom had to be impartial and also willing and able to serve for up to two years?a rather tall order even for that county. Carpenters were hired to enlarge the jury box. Tynan figured that to get what they needed, they might have to interview as many as 2,000 people (it turned out to be just short of 1,600).

Alan Yochelson joined Halpin for the prosecution team, and throughout the voir dire , Halpin and Daniel Hernandez traded so many insults that the judge told them to take their macho posturing into a boxing ring. He called them both unprofessional. He also assigned a public defender, Ray Clark, to assist Daniel Hernandez, since Arturo seemed inclined not to be there at times.

The team had not yet disclosed their strategy and they still had numerous appeals pending, particularly one asking to overturn the decision made by a judge who had refused to remove Tynan from the case. Ramirez, often choosing all-black garb, began to don sunglasses as part of his mysterious persona. Although he remained shaggy-haired throughout, reinforcing his rebellious reputation, he got more involved in the proceedings.

On August 3, the LA Times reported that jail employees had overheard a plan by Ramirez to shoot and kill the prosecutor with a gun that someone was going to slip him in the courtroom. A metal detector was installed outside the courtroom and even the lawyers were searched. Ramirez seemed surprised, and no gun was ever found.

Finally after several months, a jury of twelve, with alternates, was seated. Then one juror was dismissed for making racially biased statements about the death penalty.

In January 1989, a state appeals court found Daniel Hernandez "deficient" in presenting another client in an earlier murder trial. Reportedly, he was "not surprised" by the decision. He also had a record of seeking delays for medical conditions caused by stress. No one knew why the family had hired such an inexperienced attorney. He continued to seek delays.

By the end of the month, January 30, the trial began with Halpin's two-hour opening statement about the thirteen murders and thirty felony charges. He intended to introduce at least four hundred exhibits as evidence, including fingerprints, ballistics evidence, and shoe impressions?one of which had been on the face of one victim. On that same day, the Times reported that in jail in 1985 Ramirez had referred to himself as a "super criminal," claiming he loved to kill and had murdered twenty people. "I love all that blood," a sheriff's deputy quoted him as saying. Halpin hoped to enter these statements as evidence.

Hernandez declined to make an opening statement at this stage. His strategy remained veiled.

Then the case really began. While some witnesses had a difficult time with memory recall four years after the crimes, others were quite certain of their identification of Richard Ramirez. A few offered lengthy descriptions of their ordeal at the hands of Ramirez, sometimes while he leafed through a notebook of bloody crime scene photos. The defendant, when asked, refused to remove his sunglasses.

Halpin used circumstantial evidence to link Ramirez with the Avia shoes that left prints at crime scenes, with his appearance in the vicinity of the crimes, with his shifting MO, and with possession of items removed from the victims or their homes. He also had fingerprints and "signature" evidence. On April 14, after using 137 witnesses and 521 exhibits, the prosecution rested its case. But then, it had become clear that the defense strategy would be that the eight eyewitnesses?some of whom were survivors--had all mistakenly identified Ramirez. Some other guy had done it all. They were granted two weeks to prepare.

One hurdle the defense team had to jump was the numerous pentagrams left at crime scenes, in a car that bore Ramirez's fingerprint, on the thigh of a victim, on Ramirez, and in his cell. This was a means of linking the crimes, especially since Ramirez was a self-proclaimed Satanist. He had allegedly forced one surviving victim to swear allegiance to Satan as he assaulted her and shot her husband. Besides fingerprint and impression evidence from Avia shoes (allegedly worn by Ramirez, though they could not be found), ballistics evidence showed the use of four different guns, one of which was traced to a man who said he had gotten it from Ramirez.

The defense actually began three weeks later, on May 9, in part because on May 2 one of the prosecution's witnesses was ordered to re-testify. He had admitted to withholding information while under oath as he had described jewelry and consumer items linked to the victims and received from Ramirez. Halpin himself had uncovered the deception and said it was not damaging to the case. Hernandez withheld judgment but looked for an appeal opportunity.

On May 4, the Times ran a piece about Ramirez's state of mind, saying he was gloomy and distraught, and that he did not want to put on a defense. The lawyers told the judge that this was a possibility, although they had advised him otherwise. Tynan granted a recess so they could talk further with their client. Ultimately, it was decided to go on with the trial, and they brought in thirty-eight witnesses.

The defense team essentially claimed that the prosecution's evidence was inconclusive or defective. They took note of the fact that there were many fingerprints at the crime scenes that remained unidentified and that hairs and blood samples were found that did not belong to the victims or Ramirez. In a surprise move, they had Ramirez's father, Julian Ramirez-Tapia, take the stand to say that Richard had been in El Paso , Texas , for eight days starting around May 24, 1985 . A rape victim had placed him in her home on Memorial Day, and another attack, which had ended in murder, had also occurred between May 29 and June 1. The defense attorneys also found testimony to the effect that police officers had covertly alerted witnesses to Ramirez's position in the line-up after his arrest.

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, an expert in eyewitness testimony from the University of Washington , testified that the stress of assault may have affected the witnesses' ability to accurately recall details. She also pointed out that errors are more likely when the attacker and victim are of different races. Yet she conceded under cross-examination that those victims who had more than a fleeting exposure to Ramirez were likely to be more accurate.

On May 25, defense witness Sandra Hotchkiss claimed to have been Ramirez's accomplice in numerous daytime burglaries in 1985, some of which had occurred during his alleged murder spree, and she said that none of these incidents was violent. She added that he was jumpy and amateurish. She broke off with him but was eventually arrested and convicted of other burglaries.

Throughout this phase of the trial, several disturbances occurred, such as charts falling from easels, Daniel Hernandez perspiring profusely, and evidence being erroneously represented. The newspapers pointed out that not once had the defense attorneys claimed their client was innocent. Hernandez commented in the paper that they merely wanted to prove that the prosecution's case was faulty.

Rebuttal witnesses for the prosecution contradicted the testimony of Ramirez's father by showing that Ramirez was in fact in Los Angeles having dental work done at the time that his father said he was in El Paso . A comparison of Ramirez's teeth to the charts left no doubt, though Ramirez had used an alias. A newspaper reporter, David Hancock, also contradicted the alibi by indicating that he had interviewed Ramirez-Tapia in August 1985, at which time the man had claimed he had not seen his son in at least two years.

Daniel Hernandez was allowed to fly to Texas to seek out more witnesses who might have seen Ramirez. The jury was allowed to go on vacation until July 10. Hernandez found two witnesses, but Halpin made the point that if he'd gone by plane, Ramirez could still have made it back in time to commit both attacks. One survivor had identified a piece of jewelry as hers that had admittedly been found in the El Paso home of Ramirez's sister, yet relatives of the woman murdered in May 1985 had photos of appliances from her home that had been in Ramirez's possession.

In closing arguments that lasted from July 12-25, each side emphasized the weakness in the other side's case and the strengths in it's own. Halpin pointed out that Hernandez had raised issues that he never substantiated, throwing them at the jury as mere diversions. When he was finished, Ramirez turned to the courtroom and smirked.

The judge took two days to instruct the jury, letting them know that a handgun was missing from the evidence inventory, but they had a photograph of it. After nearly a year, the jury finally started deliberations on July 26, with 8,000 pages of trial transcripts and 655 exhibits to consider.

Within a week, one juror who kept falling asleep was replaced. Then on August 14, Phyllis Singletary did not arrive. The judge summoned the jury and told them they could not continue without her, and the court was recessed for the day.

Yet the papers reported that Ms. Singletary had been shot to death in her apartment, and this news passed through the jury and eight remaining alternates like wildfire. They could not help but wonder if Ramirez had managed this from his prison cell and if he might do something similar to another of them. He certainly had plenty of black-clad groupies who came to court each day to show their support. They recalled the Charles Manson cult from 1969.

Judge Tynan called them into court the next day and told them that Ms. Singletary had been shot by an abusive boyfriend. He assured them the incident was unrelated to the case. An alternate was chosen to replace her, although the woman was so overcome with fear she could not walk to her place. Yet more news was forthcoming. Ms. Singletary's boyfriend used the same weapon with which he'd killed her to commit suicide in a hotel. He left behind his written confession. They had been arguing over the Ramirez case and he had become enraged by her disapproval of Ramirez's lawyers.

The defense team tried hard to get a mistrial declared, which Halpin opposed. "The case must not go down the drain," he insisted. Debates emerged in the newspapers over the issue, with one psychologist believing the shooting would unconsciously influence the jury against the defendant. However, the jury foreman assured the judge that they could continue. When Ramirez heard this in court, he shouted that it was all "fucked up" and had to be restrained. He continued to act out during the rest of the deliberations, saying that the trial had not been fair, and he was allowed to waive his right to be present in court. Whenever brief hearings were needed, the proceedings were piped into his holding cell.

On September 20, almost two months after they had begun, the jury announced that they had reached a unanimous decision. Ramirez elected not to attend the reading. Neither did his coterie of girlfriends. On each of the forty-three counts, the jury had voted guilty and had affirmed nineteen "special circumstances" that made him eligible for the death penalty. Upon leaving his cell, Ramirez flashed a devil sign?two finger for horns--at photographers and made a single comment: "Evil."

The defense team asked Ramirez to assist with the penalty phase, because without mitigating factors, he surely would be condemned to death.

"Dying doesn't scare me," he responded. "I'll be in hell. With Satan." He told his lawyers that he would not beg. So to everyone's surprise, they offered no witnesses and did not call him to plead for his life. Halpin said later that this decision had caught him "flat-footed." Clark simply argued before the jury that something was obviously wrong with Ramirez and they should be compassionate?sympathy even for the devil. Halpin reviewed his arguments from the trial and urged them to give him his "just desserts."

On October 3, 1989 , after four days of deliberations, the jury said they had voted for death for Richard Ramirez. The female members were crying. Ramirez, who was present for this, was led from the courtroom smiling. "Big Deal," he said. "Death always went with the territory." Later as he was led in shackles back to the county jail, he added for reporters, "I'll see you in Disneyland ."

On November 9, he was officially sentenced to death nineteen times. Ramirez chatted with his attorneys throughout. Afterward he added to his dark image with his rather incomprehensible speech to the court: "You do not understand me. I do not expect you to. You are not capable of it. I am beyond your experience. I am beyond good and evil. Legions of the night, night breed, repeat not the errors of night prowler and show no mercy. I will be avenged. Lucifer dwells within us all."

He denounced the court officials as liars, haters, and parasitic worms. He said that he'd been misunderstood. As he was led away to eventually join the 262 inmates already on death row in San Quentin?including Freeway Killer Randy Kraft, sentenced a month before--he asked, "Where are the women?" He then flashed his two-fingered devil symbol at a busload of female prisoners, who called out, "Killer!" That made him smile.

To understand Richard Ramirez and his passion for the devil, we need to examine more than just his life; we must also look at the times.

Ramirez committed his murder spree in 1985, in the midst of the "satanic panics" that swept the country throughout the decade. Anxiety over Satanists and evil conspiracies mounted on a cultural scale, and narratives told by people in therapy about ritual abuse by secret Satanic rings showed many common elements?and no evidence. Whole masses of people developed similar physical symptoms that were primarily emotional in origin, and the idea of ritual abuse was heavily promoted by journalists, therapists, physicians, drug companies, and whoever else might find some stake in them.

Serial killers, too, adopted satanic robes. During that decade, Robert Berdella killed six men in Missouri for satanic purposes, Antone Costa killed four women in Cape Cod in rituals, Thomas Creech admitted to 47 satanic sacrifices, and Larry Eyler buried four of his 23 victims under a barn marked with an inverted pentagram. Nurse Donald Harvey, suspected in the deaths of 47 patients, admitted to a fascination with black magic, and Leonard Lake , who had teamed up with Charles Ng for a series of torture-murders, was affiliated with a coven of witches. One killer targeted homeless men, ringing his victims with a circle of salt. A teenager who wanted to follow the devil murdered his parents in their beds.

Also during the 1980s, a former associate of John Wayne Gacy named Robin Gecht inspired a group of three other men known as the Ripper Crew in killing an estimated eighteen women. They would murder a victim, sever her left breast with a thin wire, clean it out to use for sexual gratification, and then cut it into pieces to consume. Ostensibly, they were worshipping Satan, and eating the flesh was a form of demonic communion.

The Night Stalker had the same devilish persuasion. He'd creep up in the night, dressed in black, and enter homes surreptitiously. Sometimes he removed the eyes of his victims, as if for a ritual. He bludgeoned two elderly sisters and left Satanic symbols on the thigh of the one who died in the form of a pentagram. He also drew pentagrams on the walls in lipstick. When he was arrested, Ramirez reportedly said he was a minion of Satan sent to commit the Dark One's dirty work.

Was this admission some kind of preparation for an insanity defense or something he truly believed? If he believed it, did it inspire more savagery? Did it cause him to kill? Let's review some of the influential factors of his life that have been commonly linked to the development of a violent temperament.

He was born in El Paso , Texas , in 1960, the youngest of five children. He was a quiet boy, according to neighbors, with hard-working parents. However, Richard's father had a temper and sometimes beat the kids. The model of abuse in the form of a parent can often be a bad start for a child, especially a boy watching his father. Add to that, possible abuse from a male teacher, and Richard had two role models who demonstrated how to use others for their own frustrated ends. Richard was afraid of his father, and he would leave home to hang out in a nearby cemetery, even spending the night. He found peace among the dead, and this may have been where he first developed an attraction to the macabre.

Forensic psychologist Dr. N. G. Berrill, from John College of Criminal Justice, pointed out on Court TV's Mugshots that a means for getting over one's fears is "to identify with what's frightening you. One way to do that is to become a frightening person yourself."

More than one criminal has become the very thing that scared him, turning from victim into victimizer. Yet Ramirez would take this transformation another step. It would become more than just frightening people. He would want to mutilate them, degrade them, and radiate their fear in larger ripples at others.

Ramirez also suffered from epileptic seizures?possibly viewed as a weakness in that south-Texas culture, since it forced him to give up football--and he became something of a loner in school. He was thin and girlish in appearance, so he may have been ridiculed. Yet he had ambitions to become famous. He wanted people to know him. He wanted to make a difference.

He looked up to an older cousin named Mike, who may have become something of a father substitute. Mike loved to prove how tough he was, especially by fighting. As Richard hung out with him day after day, absorbing Mike's life philosophies, he learned a new outlook. Mike had survived the rigors of Vietnam , and when he returned, even more hardened and covered in tattoos, he became larger-than-life in Richard's eyes. He'd come through an ordeal and he had secrets from an exotic place. That was pretty exciting, but even better were the photographs that Mike liked to show Richard of the butchered dead?including women. He said that killing made him feel like a god, and there was nothing more powerful. Mike bragged that he had raped and murdered a number of women, and he had the photos to prove it. While Richard may have been shocked at first, eventually he got used to such sights, especially since it was important to show Mike that he could handle it. Mike might have been testing young Richard, not yet even an adolescent, but Richard was up to the test. He took it in and wanted more.

The key insight here is that Richard's exposure to Mike's atrocities occurred at a time in his life when he was also becoming a young man, and often when things get associated with physical excitement and intrigue during early sexual development, they also become eroticized. Thus they become a part of the mental landscape as well. Sexual fantasies can develop from the associated images, and those fantasies become repetitive and more detailed throughout one's life and may lay the groundwork for later acts. Richard supposedly had viewed Polaroids of Mike in sexual activity in which the woman was a helpless victim and of Mike murdering these same women. He saw how his idol could do these things without a qualm, no doubt got excited by the naked women in sexual positions, and probably learned that women could be easily used as objects for degradation. It was all part of being a real man, yet it was also forbidden, which gave Mike's macho realm an added allure.

In addition to that, Mike also taught Richard the art of hunting as a predator. They would go into the desert at night to observe and sneak up on animals. Mike then would show Richard how to kill an animal with a knife or gun, and it's likely they indulged in some bloody aspects of this sport.

As Richard developed, Mike became his role model and whatever Mike did without fear, Richard wanted to do. That set him up for one more incident that would prove everything that Mike had demonstrated thus far.

One day, Mike got into a fight with his wife, who wanted him to get a job, and decided to end her harassment. He drew a revolver and shot her. Then he told Richard to leave. For this crime, Mike went to a mental institution, judged to have been temporarily insane. Yet right after the incident, Richard went into the home with his father and saw and smelled the blood. He felt a connection with the dead, he confessed later to author Philip Carlo ( The Night Stalker ), which bordered on the mystical.

Some psychologists pinpoint this killing as the turning point for him, but it's more likely that he had already become inured to death, especially with women, via the photographs Mike had shown him, and by killing animals up close. This incident was probably not as traumatic for him as it might have been, given what he'd already been exposed to. The numbness had already developed in him. Otherwise, we might expect that he'd have run from the apartment and gone to the police, or gone into a depression and avoided his cousin thereafter. In fact, he told no one that he had witnessed the crime.

What may have been just as instrumental in his development is that he did attend church, so to be able to worship and also accept his cousin's violent attitudes indicated that he'd already begun to compartmentalize?to act and think differently in different contexts. That's the most dangerous kind of person, because it becomes difficult for others to recognize the violent side, and difficult for the person to stop his own violent acts. He may not even view them as bad.

Eventually, Richard discovered the Church of Satan , and that seemed to draw all the threads of his temperament together in the right way. The themes of dominance, control, and power called to him, as did the idea of something sacred, even if it was evil. All of this might have made him able to erase his feelings of weakness.

Then when he was 18, he moved to California . He had nothing much to do there, so he stole cars, listened to music, and looked for opportunities, whatever they may be. He would steal without compunction and buy drugs. He still sought something that might make him significant.

Richard Ramirez had perceived in the culture around him---he was not far from where teachers had been arrested in 1983 at the McMartin pre-school and accused as a ring of Satanists corrupting children---that people were afraid of Satan, and to him that probably meant that aligning himself with the Prince of Darkness would empower him in a unique way. People would actually fear him. So he cultivated the trappings of Satanism that were popular during the 1970s and 80s?pentagrams, black clothing, demonic eyes, stealthy ways, and a penchant for the night. He took his cue from the song, "Night Prowler," noting how the person who made others afraid was the person in control.

So he went on his murder spree, was caught, and went through a trial. He was certainly making a name for himself, but it wasn't enough just to be another serial killer. There were plenty of those by the 1980s?even a trial in Orange County at the same time. He perceived that he had set himself apart with his satanic incarnation, and he played that up for the press.

At a preliminary hearing, Ramirez flashed a pentagram that he'd had tattooed onto the palm of his hand. When he was convicted and his lawyers warned him that he could get the death sentence. "I'll be in hell, then," he said, "with Satan." He saw the newspaper articles talking about him as the devil and understood that he was a celebrity now. The more he flashed the pentagram or talked about serving Satan, the more he was quoted in the papers. He adopted sunglasses to enhance his mystique. He apparently embraced the idea that he was a "monster." Even during his trial, when one juror was murdered, the incident made other jurors wonder if Ramirez had called forth demons to attack that person. They were fearful that he might pick them off. He'd often tried to intimidate them individually with his stares.

He was sentenced to death and sent to Death Row in San Quentin. When talking to police officers, he was quite curious as to whether there would now be books about him as there were about Ted Bundy and Jack the Ripper. He loved the idea that someone had made a movie.

During the 1990s, Jason Moss wrote to Ramirez as part of his project to write to serial killers, and Ramirez reportedly wanted him to become a Satanist.

Since Ramirez's beliefs seem fundamental to his desire to be notorious and unique, it's difficult to know to what degree he was sincerely devoted to Satan. Yet it's likely that his desire to kill and the manner in which he committed his crimes had more to do with his cousin Mike's psychological influence, coupled with his notion that killing makes one a god.

All text that appears in this section was provided by www.crimelibrary.com (the very best source for serial killer information on the internet). Serialkillercalendar.com thanks the crime library for their tireless efforts in recording our dark past commends them on the amazing job they have done thus far).



ramirez_221.jpg

Two walkers stroll with the Downtown LA skyline as their backdrop. No one felt safe during the summer
of 1985, when Night Stalker Richard Ramirez repeatedly struck quiet, middle class neighborhoods
throughout the Southland. Photo by Mike Sergieff
.



ramirez_222.jpg

Sheriff's Deputy Bill Phelton on patrol at night in Temple City, where attacks by the Night Stalker
have caused rising fear in the community. Behind him, homes are visible, with their porch
lights turned on for safety. Photograph by Michael Haering
.



ramirez_241.jpg

A citizen frightened by the Night Stalker holds her gun in a posed photograph for the Herald Examiner.
The caption, a quote by the woman in the photograph identified as Debbie, reads "I don't know why the Night Stalker started to bother me. Nothing like this has ever happened before. but it did. So when
my husband went on call the other night, I started cleaning and oiling my gun. I'm taking shooting
practice this week." Photo by Anne Knudsen
.



ramirez_251.jpg

Tim Stegeman, a Guardian Angel, pictured here with his mother, Ruth. During the Night Stalker summer,
many people went to extremes for security. Tim became a Guardian Angel in order to protect his mother. Photo by James Ruebsamen
.



ramirez_252.jpg

Health Food Store employee John Quinn stands beside the parking space where Night Stalker Richard
Ramirez dumped the stolen car used in the Mission Viejo attack. The 76 Corolla station wagon was
parked in the spot where the light colored car is parked in the photograph.
Photo by Paul Chinn
.



ramirez_253.jpg

Dr. Rodney Shelton Brooks, manager of Beverly Book and Bible, allowed officers into his store to
stake out the stolen vehicle when it was found abandoned in a Rampart shopping area lot.
Photo by Paul Chinn
.



ramirez_262.jpg

Lela Kneiding, 66, and Maxson Kneiding, 68, were brutally slain in their home of 28 years by Richard Ramirez.


ramirez_254.jpg

Apartment building of Night Stalker victim in Santa Monica, at 1424 14th Street. The killer of Jean
Wildish entered her apartment on Santa Monica through the sliding glass door on her balcony.
Photo by Mike Sergieff.



ramirez_261.jpg

Faustino Pinon and Jaime Burgoin sit in front of the Ford Mustang that Night Stalker Richard
Ramirez attempted to steal. Photo by James Ruebsamen
.



ramirez_263.jpg

Bill Gregory stand on Cottage Home Street in Chinatown near the Pasadena Freeway. It was here that Night Stalker suspect Richard Ramirez stole Gregory's Toyota station wagon.
Photograph by Anne Knudsen
.



ramirez_264.jpg

Arturo Benavidez of Art's Barber Shop called police after Night Stalker Richard Ramirez tried to steal
this occupied car in front of his shop. LA Herald photo by Leo Jarzomb
.



ramirez_265.jpg

Rosalio Dimas is pictured here with his garden shears. He tried to hit Night Stalker
Richard Ramirez as the suspect ran through his yard. Photo by Leo Jarzomb
.



ramirez_268.jpg

An Orange County Deputy stands near the 76 Toyota station wagon that Night Stalker Richard
Ramirez used in his attack in Mission Viejo. Next to the car is a coroner's crime scene
investigation truck. Photograph by Paul Chinn
.



ramirez_278.jpg

When Night Stalker Richard Ramirez stole Bill Gregory's Toyota station wagon, there was religious
literature like this inside the car. Shortly after the car was stolen, the Pastor whose church was
listed on the literature began receiving strange calls. Photograph by Anne Knudsen.



ramirez_269.jpg

A green 1976 Pontiac Grand Prix, believed to have been used by the Night Stalker, is inspected by
police in East Los Angeles. A man leans over the police tape, and jots something down into his
notebook, at left. In background, another officer inspects the front of the car.
Photo by Dean Musgrove
.
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned


ramirez_272.jpg

An LAPD officer motions the way for Manuel and Angelina De La Torre, whose car the Night Stalker, Richard
Ramirez, tried to steal. When Angelina refused to turn over her keys, Ramirez assaulted her by punching
her in the stomach. Photograph taken by Chris Gulker
.



ramirez_273.jpg

Angelina and Manuel De La Torre of East Hubbard Street pose with their children Amber and Manuel Jr.,
and gifts. Night Stalker Richard Ramirez attempted to steal Angelina's car, and when she refused to
turn over her keys, he assaulted her. Photograph by Mike Sergieff.



ramirez_275.jpg

LAPD Detective Leroy Orozco, sitting on an office desk. The detective thought that the Satanism
angle might help crack the case, so he assigned investigators to talk to witches, and had one
officer research the heavy metal band AC/DC.
Photo by Leo Jarzomb.



ramirez_276.jpg

Frank Salerno, Night Stalker Task Force commander in the LA Sheriff's Department.
Photo by Mike Mullen.



ramirez_255.jpg

Sheriff's cadets search for evidence in shrubs along the York Blvd. onramp to the Glendale Freeway,
hoping to find evidence in the Night Stalker case. Authorities on the scene stated that they found
five or six pieces of "possible" evidence.
Photograph by Paul Chinn
.



ramirez_291.jpg

Armando Lojero holds up a copy of the LA Herald which identified Stalker suspect as Richard Ramirez.
Lojero, owner of the Wyvernwood store on the corner of 8th and Evergreen, said that Ramirez took
the newspaper from the stand in front of his store after seeing himself on the first page.
Photograph by Leo Jarzomb
.



ramirez_270.jpg

Crowds gather around a poice car at LAPD's Hollenbeck Station, in an attempt to catch a glimpse
of the Night Stalker. Photo by Mike Sergieff
.



ramirez_274.jpg

Mayor Tom Bradley visits Hollenbeck station after the Night Stalker suspect was arrested.


ramirez_281.jpg

Jaime and Julio Burgoin of East Hubbard Street, who helped capture the Night Stalker
suspect, hold a press conference on their front porch. Photo by Mike Sergieff
.



ramirez_282.jpg

Joseph Romero III, sitting on his new Yamaha ATV, is lauded at Orange County Sheriff's
headquarters for giving information that helped crack the Night Stalker case. The boy
provided information on the Toyota the Night Stalker used in Mission Viejo.
Photograph by Anne Knudsen
.



ramirez_271.jpg

A photograph of two of the "heroes" of the Night Stalker capture. Jose Burgoin, at left, pursued Ramirez
after he tried to steal the Mustang of Faustino Pinon, right. Photograph by James Ruebsamen
.



ramirez_285.jpg

Supervisor Ed Edelman, center, presents plaques to the men who helped capture Night Stalker suspect
Richard Ramirez in an East LA neighborhood. Standing left to right are Deputy Andres "Andy" Ramirez,
Carmelo Robles, Manuel De La Torre, Jose Burgoin, Frank Moreno, and Faustino Pinon. Also pictured
are Sheriff Sherman Block, Julio Burgoin, and an interpreter.
Photo by Mike Sergieff
.



ramirez_277.jpg

Deputy Tom Martin guards the evidence of stolen items recovered from the Night Stalker case.
Behind the deputy at least eight rectangular tables are visible with various gold and other items,
marked in plastic bags. Photo by Anne Knudsen.



ramirez_290.jpg

Well wishers leave words of thanks for Faustino Pinon, on a sign at his Hubbard Street home, for
helping capture Night Stalker Richard Ramirez. Photo by Dean Musgrove
.
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned
ramirez_099.jpg

This family photo was offered as evidence backing testimony from Richard Ramirez' father, that
Ramirez was in El Paso, Texas, when two of the crimes with which he was charged occurred.
Here, Richard Ramirez, at right, poses with his parents and neice in El Paso on the day of the
latter's First Communion, on May 25, 1985. A dentist's records however, place Ramirez in Los
Angeles on May 30, 1985, when a Burbank woman was raped
.



ramirez_101.jpg


Police Drawing of Los Angeles Night Stalker Killer
Second drawing of Night Stalker suspect by Los Angeles Police Department artist F. G. Ponce on August 26,
1985, showing him wearing a cap, added to the original hatless figure. The drawings are in color and in
black-and-white. He is described as "Male caucasian or possibly light-complected Latin, age 25-35,
6'0"-6'@", 150 lbs., thin. Hair style changes, might not be curly, may be parted. Usually wears dark
clothing and tennis shoes. Armed and dangerous
."



ramirez_100.jpg

Photograph of the cover page of the Los Angeles Herald, Sunday edition, September 1, 1985,
where captured Night Stalker Richard Ramirez boasts "It's Me!.
"



ramirez_102.jpg

9/4/1985-California: Richard Ramirez, arrested as "Night Stalker," accused mass murderer.


ramirez_103a.jpg

ramirez_103.jpg

August 31, 1985 - Los Angeles, California: Richard Ramirez, the man police have arrested as the alleged
Night Stalker is surrounded by police officers as he walks out of a police station 8/31. The man police
believe responsible for 16 murders and two dozen other brutal assaults was captured by angry citizens
when he attempted to steal a car.


ramirez_104a.jpg

ramirez_104.jpg

September 3, 1985 - Richard Ramirez (R) accused of being the Los Angeles area "Night Stalker" murderer
and allegedly slaying 16 people, leaves court after being charged with the murder of a 65 year old man,
one of the slayings attributed to the night stalker. Ramirez delayed entering a plea until
September 10, 1985.


ramirez_104b.jpg

Flanked by his court-appointed attorneys, Night Stalker suspect Richard Ramirez
bows his head during arraignment proceedings
.



ramirez_105.jpg

September 9, 1985 - Suspect Richard Ramirez (R), accused of being the Los Angeles area serial killer
called the "Night Stalker", in courtroom with his public defender Alan Adashek (L). Ramirez pleaded
innocent at the hearing to 68 felony counts, including 13 murder charges.


ramirez_105a.jpg

Richard Ramirez appearing in court with attorney Allen R. Adashek on September 10, 1985, to
face eight charges, including one of murder. Eventually he would be convicted of 19 murders
.


ramirez_106b.jpg

ramirez_106.jpg

Richard Ramirez, accused of being the serial killer called the "Night Stalker", appears in court to fire
his public defenders and hire a private attorney. Los Angeles, October 9, 1985.


ramirez_106a.jpg

Night Stalker suspect Richard Ramirez in court on October 10, 1985,
conferring with his new attorney, Joseph Gallegos
.



ramirez_107.jpg

October 22, 1985 - Suspect Richard Ramirez, accused of being the Los Angeles area serial killer
called the "Night Stalker", gesturing in courtroom. Ramirez pleaded innocent at the hearing to
68 felony counts, including 13 murder charges.


ramirez_108a.jpg

ramirez_108.jpg

ramirez_108b.jpg

October 24, 1985 - Suspect Richard Ramirez, accused of being the Los Angeles area serial
killer called the "Night Stalker", flashes his left palm showing a pentagram, a symbol of
satanic worship, at his former attorney Joseph Gallegos after he was replaced
by 2 new attorneys.


ramirez_109a.jpg

Night Stalker defendant in court on November 15, 1985, at which time the date
for his preliminary hearing was set for February 24, 1986.
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned
ramirez_109.jpg

A mug shot of the "Night Stalker" serial killer, who perpetrated a series of brutal
murders in the Los Angeles area in 1984 and 1985.


ramirez_109b.jpg

Richard Ramirez is led into court before Judge James Nelson on February 25, 1986, where it was
ruled that his hearing should remain open
.



ramirez_109c.jpg

Marshal brings Night Stalker suspect Richard Ramirez into court for preliminary hearing
on multiple murder charges on March 18, 1986. He faced 68 felony counts
.



ramirez_110.jpg

Richard Ramirez, accused of being the serial killer called the "Night Stalker",
appears in court wearing prison clothes. Los Angeles, May 6, 1986.


ramirez_111.jpg

May 21, 1986 - "Night Stalker" suspect Richard Ramirez stands in court during his arraignment
for 14 counts of murder and 31 other felonies. He pleaded innocent to the charges.


ramirez_111a.jpg

Night Stalker defendant Richard Ramirez with his attorney, Daniel Hernandez, on July 22, 1988.


ramirez_141.jpg

Mercedes Ramirez, in dark glasses, arrives in the courthouse for the trial of her son,
Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker. Photo by Michael Haering
.



ramirez_142.jpg

Judy and Bill Arnold, in the courtroom. Judy Arnold is the daughter or Lela and Maxson
Kneiding, who were murdered by Richard Ramirez. Photo by Michael Haering
.



ramirez_112a.jpg

Defendant Richard Ramirez in court January 30, 1989, for the first day of his trial,
wearing a suit that concealed leg irons
.



ramirez_112.jpg

January 30, 1989 - Suspect Richard Ramirez, accused of being the Los Angeles area serial killer
called the "Night Stalker", listens in court as prosecutors began their opening statements.
The trial is expected to last 2 years. During their opening statements prosecutors indicated
they would ask for the death penalty. Ramirez is charged with 13 killings.


ramirez_183.jpg

Night Stalker Defense Attorney Daniel Hernandez in a pensive mood in the courtroom.
Richard Ramirez, with downcast eyes, can be seen in the background.
Photo by Leo Jarzomb
.



ramirez_143.jpg

Philip Halpin, attorney for the prosecution in the Night Stalker trial. Photo by Michael Haering.


ramirez_113a.jpg

Richard Ramirez is escorted from a meeting in Judge Tynan's chamber
with defense attorneys on May 9, 1989
.



ramirez_113b.jpg

Night Stalker defendant Richard Ramirez in court on July 13, 1989, clad in black
and wearing trademark sunglasses
.



ramirez_113c.jpg

Richard Ramirez in court on September 20, 1989, where the jury found him guilty of 12 counts of murder
in the first degree, along with many other guilty verdicts including rape, sodomy and burglary
.



ramirez_121.jpg

Night Stalker suspect Richard Ramirez, center, confers with attorney Daniel Hernandez
and paralegal Richard Salinas. Photo by Michael Haering
.



ramirez_122.jpg

Night Stalker suspect Richard Ramirez confers with his attorney, Daniel Hernandez, shortly before
the entry of Judge Michael Tynan in a morning hearing. Photo by Mike Sergieff
.



ramirez_123.jpg

Judge Michael Tynan reads ruling to Night Stalker suspect Richard Ramirez, at far left,
with attorneys Daniel Hernandez and Ray Clark. Photo by Mike Sergieff
.



ramirez_181.jpg

Night Stalker case prosecuting attorneys P. Philip Halpin and Alan Yochelson, conferring in the courtroom.
Photo by Leo Jarzomb
.



ramirez_184.jpg

Night Stalker defense attorney Daniel Hernandez with law clerk Richard Salinas in the courtroom.
Photo by Leo Jarzomb
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned

ramirez_113f.jpg

A collection of photographs of the Night Stalker that appeared in the Herald-Examiner
on September 21, 1989
.



ramirez_113g.jpg

Richard Ramirez enters the courtroom on September 29, 1989.


ramirez_113.jpg

October 4, 1989 - Richard Ramirez, accused of being the Los Angeles area serial killer
called the "Night Stalker", looks out the window of a police van.


ramirez_144.jpg

Press have gathered in the courthouse for the final verdict in the Night Stalker case. Photo by Akili-Casundria Ramsess.


ramirez_145.jpg



ramirez_113d.jpg

Richard Ramirez during the reading of his sentencing on October 4, 1989, which was death on all counts.


ramirez_113e.jpg

Richard Ramirez during the reading of his sentencing on October 4, 1989, which was death on all counts.


ramirez_163.jpg

Sisters Judi Arnold, left, and Ellen Francis, whose parents where slain by Richard Ramirez,
fight back tears at his sentencing. Photo by Aliki-Casundria Ramsess.



ramirez_114a.jpg

Richard Ramirez leaves the Criminal Courts building following being sentenced to death
in the gas chamber on 19 counts for his 1985 rampage of destruction and death
.



ramirez_114.jpg

November 7, 1989 - Suspect Richard Ramirez, accused of being the Los Angeles area serial killer
called the "Night Stalker", is led from the courthouse following his conviction of murdering 13
people and was sentenced to death in the gas chamber. Ramirez flashes a two finger
'devil's horn' sign and shouted out 'evil' to reporters.


ramirez_148.jpg

Richard Ramirez


ramirez_115.jpg

Richard Ramirez leaving the Criminal Courts.


ramirez_146.jpg

Richard Ramirez


ramirez_149.jpg

Richard Ramirez


ramirez_147.JPG

Richard Ramirez


ramirez_901.jpg

Richard Ramirez
 

b2ux

Banned
This user was banned
Timothy James McVeigh

mcveigh000.jpg




Classification: Mass murderer
Characteristics: Revenge for "what the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge"
Number of victims: 168
Date of murder: April 19, 1995
Date of arrest: Same day
Date of birth: April 23, 1968
Victims profile: Men, women and children (Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building)
Method of murder: Bombing (ammonium nitrate and nitromethane)
Location: Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, USA
Status: Executed by lethal injection in Oklahoma on June 11, 2001




Summary:

On April 19, 1995, around 9:03 a.m., just after parents dropped their children off at day care at the Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, the unthinkable happened.

A massive bomb inside a rental truck exploded, blowing half of the nine-story building into oblivion. A stunned nation watched as the bodies of men, women, and children were pulled from the rubble for nearly two weeks.

When the smoke cleared and the exhausted rescue workers packed up and left, 168 people were dead in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. (Prior to 09-11-01)

It was the second anniversary of the fire at the home of David Koresh's Branch Davidian followers in Waco, Texas.

Just 90 minutes after the explosion, an Oklahoma Highway Patrol officer pulled over 27-year-old Timothy McVeigh for driving without a license plate.

Shortly before he was to be released on April 21, McVeigh was recognized as a bombing suspect and was charged with the bombing.

When McVeigh's ex-Army buddy, Terry Nichols, discovered that he, too, was wanted for questioning, he voluntarily surrendered to police in Herington, Kansas, and was later charged in the bombing.

The federal raids at the Branch Davidian compound at Waco and the cabin of white separatist Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge brought McVeigh's anti-government hatred to a head. He decided it was time for action, not words. He packed a Ryder truck with explosives, lit the fuses, parked it outside the federal building and walked away without looking back.

McVeigh was sentenced to death. Nichols was tried separately, convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter and Concpiracy to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

McVeigh was unrepentant to the bitter end, claiming that the true terrorist was the U.S. Government, and referring to the killing of scores of innocent children in Oklahoma City as "collateral damage." He waived his final appeals.

Citations:

U.S. v. McVeigh, 918 F.Supp. 1452 (W.D.Okl. 1996)(Media request to unseal documents).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 918 F.Supp. 1467 (W.D.Okl. 1996) (Change of Venue).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 923 F.Supp. 1310 (D.Colo. 1996) (Discovery).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 931 F.Supp. 753 (D.Colo. 1996) (Motion to Stop Trial Audiotape).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 931 F.Supp. 756 (D.Colo. 1996) (Gag Order).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 940 F.Supp. 1541 (D.Colo. 1996) (Motion to Suppress).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 940 F.Supp. 1571 (D.Colo. 1996) (Motions to Dismiss).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 944 F.Supp. 1478 (D.Colo. 1996) (Motion to Dismiss DP/Disqualify AG).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 169 F.R.D. 362 (D.Colo. 1996) (Motion for Separate Trials).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 954 F.Supp. 1441 (D.Colo. 1997) (Discovery).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 954 F.Supp. 1454 (D.Colo. 1997) (Discovery).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 955 F.Supp. 1278 (D.Colo. 1997) (Motion to Exclude Lab Testing).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 955 F.Supp. 1281 (D.Colo. 1997) (Motion for Change of Venue/Continuance).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 958 F.Supp. 512 (D.Colo. 1997) (Separation of Victim/Witnesses).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 964 F.Supp. 313 (D.Colo. 1997) (Gag Order).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 118 F.Supp.2d 1137 (D.Colo. 2000) (Motion for New Trial).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 1998)(Direct Appeal), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 1148 (1999).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 2001 WL 611163 (D.Colo. 2001) (Stay of Execution).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 106 F.3d 325 10th Cir. 1997) (Separation of Victim/Witnesses).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806 (10th Cir. 1997) (Motion to Unseal), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1110 (1998).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 157 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1998) (Removing Gag Order).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 9 Fed.Appx. 980 (10th Cir. 2001) (Stay of Execution - Documents).

Last / Special Meal:

Two pints of mint chocolate chip ice cream

Final Words:

McVeigh made no final remarks but gave witnesses a handwritten copy of English poet William Ernest Henley's 1875 poem, "Invictus": "In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud. Under the bludgeonings of chance my head is bloody, but unbowed..." "I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul."

Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was a United States Army veteran and security guard who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He was convicted of 11 United States federal offenses, and was sentenced to death and executed for his role in the April 19, 1995 bombing. His act, which killed 168 people, was the deadliest event of domestic terrorism in the United States, and the deadliest act of terrorism within United States borders until the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Biography

McVeigh was born in Lockport, New York, and raised in nearby Pendleton, New York. He was the middle child of three, and the only male child. His family was Irish Catholic. He was picked on by bullies at school, and took refuge in a fantasy world in which he retaliated against them; he would later come to regard the U.S. Government as the ultimate bully. He earned his high school diploma from Starpoint Central High School.

His parents, Mildred Noreen ("Mickey") Hill and William McVeigh, divorced when he was in his teens. McVeigh was known throughout his life as a loner; his only known affiliations were voter registration with the Republican Party when he lived in New York, and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military. His grandfather introduced him to guns, with which he became fascinated. McVeigh told people he wanted to be a gun shop owner, and he sometimes took a gun to school to impress the other boys.

After graduating high school with honors, he became intensely interested in gun rights and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and devoured right-wing, pro-militia magazines such as Soldier of Fortune and Spotlight. He went to work for Burke Armored Car Service. McVeigh was shy and was said to have only had one girlfriend during his high school years. McVeigh would later tell journalists that he always said the wrong thing to women he was trying to impress.

Religious beliefs

After his parents' divorce, McVeigh lived with his father; his sisters moved to Florida with their mother. He and his father were devout Roman Catholics who often attended daily Mass. In a recorded interview with Time Magazine McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "never really picked it [back] up". The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic. He was given the Catholic sacrament of Viaticum before his execution.

Military career

In May 1988, McVeigh enlisted in the U.S. Army. Michel and Herbeck comment on the process of brutalization he went through as a recruit: "During dawn runs and their long, exhausting marches over the Georgia sand, their sound-offs revolved around killing and mutilating the enemy, or violent sex with women."

He was a decorated veteran of the United States Army, having served in the Gulf War, where he was awarded a Bronze Star. He had been a top scoring gunner with the 25mm cannon of the light-armored Bradley Fighting Vehicles used by the U.S. 1st Infantry Division to which he was assigned. He served at Fort Riley, Kansas, before Operation Desert Storm. At Fort Riley, McVeigh completed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC). McVeigh later would say that the Army taught him how to switch off his emotions.

McVeigh wanted to join the Green Berets, the Army's elite special forces. After returning from the Gulf War, he entered the program for training to become a Green Beret, but dropped out quickly after sustaining blisters from new boots issued for a 5-mile march. He had disregarded advice to wait until he had rebuilt stamina lost during the war. Shortly thereafter, McVeigh decided to leave the Army and was discharged on December 31, 1991. McVeigh was given an honorable discharge from the Army Reserve in May 1992.

Post-military activities and lifestyle

After leaving the Army in 1992, McVeigh grew increasingly transient. At first he worked briefly near his hometown of Pendleton as a security guard, and sounded off daily to his co-worker Carl Lebron, Jr. about his loathing for government. Deciding the Buffalo area was too liberal, he left his job and began driving around America, seeking out his old friends from the Army. McVeigh used methamphetamine with Fortier, according to the latter; however, he evidently was not as interested in drugs as Fortier, as one of the reasons they parted ways was McVeigh's boredom with Fortier's drug habits. Supposedly, he used mostly IV.

McVeigh wrote letters to local newspapers, asking questions such as "Is civil war imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system?" Then in 1993, he drove to Waco, Texas during the Waco Siege to distribute pro-gun rights literature and sell bumper stickers. He told a student reporter:

"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."

McVeigh spent time on the gun show circuit. He sold copies of The Turner Diaries, and a flare gun which he said could shoot down an "ATF helicopter". One author said, "In the gun show culture, McVeigh found a home. Though he remained skeptical of some of the most extreme ideas being bandied around, he liked talking to people there about the United Nations, the federal government, and possible threats to American liberty." In between watching coverage of the Waco siege on TV, the Nichols brothers began teaching McVeigh how to make explosives out of readily available materials. The destruction of the Waco compound convinced McVeigh that it was time to take action. The government also imposed new firearms restrictions in 1994 that threatened his livelihood.

McVeigh later said he considered "a campaign of individual assassination," with "eligible" targets including Attorney-General Janet Reno, Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. of Federal District Court, who handled the Branch Davidian trial, and Lon Horiuchi, a member of the FBI hostage-rescue team who shot to death the wife of a white separatist in a standoff at a remote cabin at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992. He said he wanted Reno to accept "full responsibility in deed, not just words." However, such an assassination seemed too difficult, and he decided that since federal agents had become soldiers, it was necessary to strike against them at their command centers.

Moreover, according to American Terrorist, ultimately he decided that he would make the loudest statement by bombing a federal building. After the bombing, he would come to have some ambivalence about his act, as expressed in letters to his hometown newspaper that he sometimes wished he had carried out a series of assassinations against police and government officials instead.

Bombing

Working at a lakeside campground near his old Army post, McVeigh constructed an ANNM explosive device mounted in the back of a rented Ryder truck. The bomb consisted of about 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of ammonium nitrate (an agricultural fertilizer) and nitromethane, a motor-racing fuel.

On April 19, 1995 McVeigh drove the truck to the front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building just as its offices and day care center opened for the day. Prosecutors said McVeigh ran away from the truck after he ignited a timed fuse. At 9:02 a.m., a massive explosion destroyed the north half of the building. The explosion killed 168 people, and 450 were injured. Nineteen of the victims were small children in the day care center on the ground floor of the building. McVeigh did not express remorse for the deaths, what he referred to as "collateral damage", but said he might have chosen a different target if he had known the day care center was open.

According to the Oklahoma City Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), more than 300 buildings were damaged. More than 12,000 volunteers and rescue workers took part in the rescue, recovery, and support operations following the bombing.

In reference to theories that he had assistance from others, McVeigh responded, "You can't handle the truth. Because the truth is, I blew up the Murrah Building, and isn't it kind of scary that one man could wreak this kind of hell?"

Arrest, trial, conviction, and sentencing

By tracing the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of a rear axle found in the wreckage, the FBI identified a vehicle as a Ryder Rental Junction City agency truck. Workers at the agency assisted an FBI artist in creating a sketch of the renter, who had used the alias "Robert Kling". The sketch was shown in the area. That day manager Lea McGown of the Dreamland Hotel identified the sketch as Timothy McVeigh.

Shortly after the bombing, while driving on I-35 in Noble County, near Perry, Oklahoma, McVeigh was stopped by Oklahoma State Trooper Charles J. Hanger from Pawnee, Oklahoma. Hanger had passed McVeigh's yellow 1977 Mercury Marquis and noticed that it had no license plate. While questioning McVeigh, he noticed a bulge under his jacket and ended up arresting him for carrying a loaded firearm; McVeigh's concealed weapon permit was not legal in Oklahoma.

McVeigh was wearing a T-shirt at that time with a picture of Abraham Lincoln and the motto: sic semper tyrannis, the state motto of Virginia, and also the words shouted by John Wilkes Booth after he shot Lincoln. The translation: Thus, always, to tyrants. On the back, it had a tree with a picture of three blood droplets and the Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Three days later, while still in jail, McVeigh was identified as the subject of the nationwide manhunt.

On August 10, 1995, McVeigh was indicted on 11 federal counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives, and eight counts of first-degree murder. On October 20, 1995, the government filed notice that it would seek the death penalty.

On February 20, 1996, the Court granted a change of venue and ordered that the case be transferred from Oklahoma City to the US District Court in Denver, Colorado, to be presided over by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch.

McVeigh instructed his lawyers to use a necessity defense, but they ended up not doing so, because they would have had to prove that McVeigh was in "imminent danger" from the government. They argued that his bombing of the Murrah building was a justifiable response to what McVeigh believed were the crimes of the U.S. government at Waco, Texas. The 51-day siege of the Branch Davidian complex resulted in the deaths of 76 Branch Davidian members. As part of the defense, McVeigh's lawyers showed the jury the controversial video Waco: The Big Lie.

On June 2, 1997, McVeigh was found guilty on all 11 counts of the federal indictment.

On June 13, 1997, the jury recommended that McVeigh receive the death penalty. The U.S. Department of Justice brought federal charges against McVeigh for causing the deaths of the eight federal officers leading to a possible death penalty for McVeigh; it could not bring charges against McVeigh for the remaining 160 murders in federal court because those deaths fell under the jurisdiction of the state of Oklahoma. Because McVeigh was convicted and sentenced to death, the State of Oklahoma did not file murder charges against McVeigh for the other 160 deaths.

During his time in prison, McVeigh wrote various essays. An Essay on Hypocrisy describes the U.S. Government as hypocritical for justifying its attack on Iraq by stating that Iraq should not be allowed to stockpile weapons of mass destruction because it had used them in the past. He cited Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of the U.S. using nuclear weapons in the past. On April 26, 2001 he wrote a letter to Fox News, I Explain Herein Why I Bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which explicitly laid out his reasons for the attack.

Execution

McVeigh's death sentence was delayed pending an appeal. One of his appeals for certiorari, taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, was denied on March 8, 1999. McVeigh's request for a nationally televised execution was also denied. An internet company also sued for the rights to broadcast it.

McVeigh maintained an upbeat attitude, noting that even after his execution, the score would still be "168 to 1" and thus he was the victor. He also said: "I am sorry these people had to lose their lives. But that's the nature of the beast. It's understood going in what the human toll will be."

He said that if there turned out to be an afterlife, he would "improvise, adapt and overcome," noting that "If there is a hell, then I'll be in good company with a lot of fighter pilots who also had to bomb innocents to win the war."

He was executed by lethal injection at 7:14 a.m. on June 11, 2001, at the U.S. Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana. He had dropped his remaining appeals, giving no reason for doing so. He was 33 years old. McVeigh stated that his only regret was not completely leveling the federal building.

McVeigh invited California conductor/composer David Woodard to perform a pre-requiem (a Mass for those who are about to die), on the eve of his execution. He had also requested a Catholic chaplain. Ave Atque Vale was performed under Woodard's baton by a local brass choir at St. Margaret Mary Church, located near the Terre Haute penitentiary, at 7:00 p.m. on June 10, to an audience that included the entirety of the next morning's witnesses. McVeigh had two pints of mint chocolate chip ice cream for his last meal. McVeigh chose William Ernest Henley's poem "Invictus" as his final statement.

McVeigh was the first convicted criminal to be executed by the United States federal government since Victor Feguer in Iowa on March 15, 1963. Jay Sawyer, relative of one of the victims, noted, "Without saying a word, he got the final word." Larry Whicher, whose brother died in the attack, described McVeigh as having "A totally expressionless, blank stare. He had a look of defiance, and that if he could, he'd do it all over again."

His body was cremated at Mattox Ryan Funeral Home in Terre Haute. The cremated remains were given to his lawyer, who scattered them at an undisclosed location. McVeigh had earlier written that he considered having his ashes dropped at the site of the memorial where the Murrah building once stood, but decided that would be "too vengeful, too raw, cold." He had expressed willingness to donate organs, but was prohibited from doing so by prison regulations.

Psychiatrist John Smith concluded that McVeigh was a decent person who had allowed rage to build up inside him to the point that he had lashed out in one terrible, violent act.

Motivations for the bombing

McVeigh claimed that the bombing was revenge for "what the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge." McVeigh visited Waco during the standoff, where he spoke to a news reporter about his anger over what was happening there.

McVeigh frequently quoted and alluded to the white supremacist novel The Turner Diaries. It described acts of terrorism similar to the one he carried out. While McVeigh openly rejected the book's racism (a roommate said that McVeigh was not a racist and was basically indifferent to racist matters), he claimed to appreciate its interest in firearms. Photocopies of pages sixty-one and sixty-two of The Turner Diaries were found in an envelope inside McVeigh's car. These pages depicted a fictitious mortar attack upon the U.S. Capitol in Washington.

In interviews before his execution, documented in American Terrorist, McVeigh stated he decapitated an Iraqi soldier with cannon fire on his first day in the war and celebrated. But he said he later was shocked to be ordered to execute surrendering prisoners, and to see carnage on the road leaving Kuwait City after U.S. troops routed the Iraqi army. In interviews following the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh said he began harboring anti-government feelings during the Gulf War.

McVeigh had contemplated suicide on many occasions. Anticipating that he would probably be caught and executed, he referred to the bombing as "state-assisted suicide."

Accomplices

In addition to McVeigh, Terry Nichols was convicted and sentenced in federal court to life in prison for his role in the crime. At Nichols' trial, evidence was presented indicating that others may have been involved. Several residents of central Kansas, including real estate agent Georgia Rucker and a retired Army NCO testified at the Terry Nichols' federal trial that they had seen two trucks at Geary State Lake, where prosecutors alleged the bomb was assembled. The retired NCO said he visited the lake on April 18, 1995, but left after a group of surly men looked at him aggressively. The operator of the Dreamland Motel testified that two Ryder trucks had been parked outside her Grandview Plaza motel where McVeigh stayed in Room 26 the weekend before the bombing. Testimony suggested that McVeigh may have had several other accomplices, but no other individuals have been indicted for the bombing.

An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) informant, Carolyn Howe, told reporters that shortly before the bombing she had warned her handlers that guests of Elohim City, Oklahoma were planning a major bombing attack. McVeigh was issued a speeding ticket there at the same time. Other than this speeding ticket, there is no evidence of a connection between McVeigh and members of the MidWest bank robbers at Elohim City.

In February 2004, the FBI announced it would review its investigation after learning that agents in the investigation of the Midwest bank robbers (an alleged Aryan-oriented gang) had turned up explosive caps of the same type that were used to trigger the Oklahoma City bomb. Agents expressed surprise that bombing investigators had not been provided information from the Midwest bank robbers investigation. McVeigh was given a one-week delay prior to his execution while evidence relating to the Bank Robbers' gang was presented to a court.

McVeigh declined further delays and maintained until his death that he had acted alone in the bombing.

Islamist and Neo-Nazi conspiracy theories

In Others Unknown: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing Conspiracy, Stephen Jones, McVeigh's first, court-appointed lead defense counsel (prior to the death-penalty phase of the case), and Jones's co-author Peter Israel discuss several other possible suspects and continued to implicate Terry Nichols' brother, James.

Jones and Israel suggest in Others Unknown that Terry Nichols had come into contact with suspected Islamic terrorists during his frequent visits to the Philippines before the attacks. Nichols' father-in-law then was a Philippine police officer who owned an apartment building often rented to Arabic-speaking students with alleged terrorist connections. Richard A. Clarke, former counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council suggested that the improvement in Nichols's bomb-making techniques, along with telephone calls to the region upon his return to the U.S, pointed to a possible link to Philippines-based Islamist terrorists in Cebú and the southern islands. These accounts were detailed in Richard A. Clarke's 2004 work Against All Enemies, a memoir of his public service spanning several administrations.

McVeigh's defense attorneys also submitted a theory to the court that Islamist terrorists and American Neo-Nazis conspired in the bombing. They pointed out that location and day of the attack indicated the possibility that those seeking revenge for the execution of Richard Snell may have been involved.

Judge Matsch rejected these theories and did not allow them to be presented as part of the official defense.

Government persecution conspiracy

Various other analysts have suggested that the government was involved in a conspiracy behind the bombing, or that the government planned the attack as a false flag operation in order to justify persecuting right-wing organizations. They pointed to Nazi prosecution of legislators after the Reichstag fire.

In 1995, Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (Ret.) published an analysis of the bombing. From General Partin's analysis:

“It is impossible that the destruction to the building could have resulted from such a bomb [as McVeigh's] alone.

To cause the damage pattern that occurred to the Murrah building, there would have to have been demolition charges at several supporting column bases, at locations not accessible from the street, to supplement the truck bomb damage. Indeed, a careful examination of photographs showing the collapsed column bases reveals a failure mode produced by demolition charges and not by a blast from the truck bomb.”

Later he writes:

“Although the truck bomb had insufficient power to destroy columns, the bomb was clearly responsible for ripping out some floors at the second and third floor levels.”

Jose Padilla

Conspiracy enthusiasts have speculated that José Padilla was an accomplice of McVeigh. Both of them lived in the greater Fort Lauderdale area in Plantation, Florida. Following Jose Padilla's arrest, several media outlets pointed to a resemblance between Padilla and police sketches of an Oklahoma City bombing suspect known as "John Doe No. 2".

Inside job

In 2007 Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols claimed that a high-ranking FBI official directed Timothy McVeigh in the plot to blow up a government building, and that the original target might have been changed, according to a new affidavit filed in US District Court. Nichols also claimed that the government was protecting the official and other conspirators "in a cover-up to escape its responsibility" for the attacks.

Nichols contends a high-ranking FBI director, Larry Potts, directed Timothy McVeigh in the plot to blow up a government building and might have changed the original target of the attack, according to a new affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Utah on February 9th, 2007.

The suit, which seeks documents from the FBI under the federal Freedom of Information Act, alleges that authorities mistook Kenneth Trentadue for a bombing conspirator and that guards killed him in an interrogation that got out of hand. Trentadue's death a few months after the April 19, 1995, bombing was ruled a suicide after several investigations. The government has adamantly denied any wrongdoing in the death. Trentadue's brother, attorney Jesse Trentadue is suing for FBI teletypes to support his belief that Federal authorities were tipped to McVeigh's plans, but failed to stop the bombing and let others walk away from prosecution. A US District court judge Dale A. Kimball ruled in September 21, 2007 that Trentadue can question and videotape David Paul Hammer and Terry Nichols. The FBI has opposed these videotapings. The FBI claimed "there no longer existed any 'case or controversy' sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction" to the court after the agency's previous document disclosures. The court disagreed, noting that the FBI's responses were marked by a "troubling absence of documents to which other documents referred."

In his affidavit of February, 2007, Nichols says he wants to bring closure to the survivors and families of the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, which took 168 lives. He alleges he wrote then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004, offering to help identify all parties who played a role in the bombing but never got a reply.

McVeigh and Nichols were the only defendants indicted in the bombing. However, Nichols alleges others were involved. McVeigh told him he was recruited for undercover missions while serving in the military, according to Nichols. He says he learned sometime in 1995 that there had been a change in the bombing target and that McVeigh was upset by that.

Wikipedia.org

The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist attack on April 19, 1995 aimed at the U.S. government in which the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, an office complex in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was bombed. The attack claimed 168 lives and left over 800 people injured. Until the September 11, 2001 attacks, it was the deadliest act of terrorism on U.S. soil.

Shortly after the explosion, Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hanger stopped 26-year-old Timothy McVeigh for driving without a license plate and arrested him for that offense and for unlawfully carrying a weapon. Within days after the bombing, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were both arrested for their roles in the bombing. Investigators determined that they were sympathizers of a militia movement and that their motive was to retaliate against the government's handling of the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents (the bombing occurred on the anniversary of the Waco incident). McVeigh was executed by lethal injection on June 11, 2001. Nichols was sentenced to life in prison. A third conspirator, Michael Fortier, who testified against McVeigh and Nichols, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for failing to warn the U.S. government. As with other large scale terrorist attacks, conspiracy theories dispute the official claims and point to additional perpetrators involved.

The attacks led to widespread rescue efforts from local, state, and federal and worldwide agencies, along with considerable donations from across the country. As a result of the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, the U.S. government passed legislation designed to increase protection around federal buildings and to thwart future terrorist attacks. Under these measures, law enforcement has since foiled sixty domestic terrorism plots. On April 19, 2000, the Oklahoma City National Memorial was dedicated on the site of the Murrah Federal Building to commemorate the victims of the bombing and annual remembrance services are held at the time of the explosion.

Terror

Prelude

The bombing was a long time in planning; as early as Sept. 30, 1994, Nichols bought 40 50-pound (23 kg) bags of ammonium nitrate from Mid-Kansas Coop, an amount regarded as unusual even for a farmer. McVeigh approached Fortier and asked him to become involved in the bombing project, but he refused, saying he would never be part of the plan "unless there was a U.N. tank in my front yard!" Nichols and McVeigh stole blasting caps and liquid nitro methane, keeping it in rented storage sheds. They also allegedly robbed gun collector Roger Moore of $60,000 worth of guns, gold, silver and jewels, taking them away in a van, which was also stolen from him; although this has been called into question because, despite the fact that McVeigh visited Moore's ranch, the robbers were said to be wearing ski masks and thus a positive identification was impossible; and in any event, the physical description did not match Nichols. Also, Aryan Republican Army robbers were operating in the area of Moore's ranch at the time.

McVeigh wanted to use the rocket fuel anhydrous hydrazine, but its expense was prohibitive. He composed a letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms which denounced government agents as "fascist tyrants" and "storm troopers" and warned, "all you tyrannical mother fuckers will swing in the wind one day for your treasonous actions against the Constitution of the United States." The original plan was for Nichols to follow McVeigh's getaway car with his truck in the wake of the bombing, and for them then to flee in the truck back to Kansas.

On April 15, 1995 Timothy McVeigh rented a Ryder truck in Junction City, Kansas under the alias Robert D. Kling. On April 16, he drove to Oklahoma City with fellow conspirator Terry Nichols where he parked a getaway vehicle several blocks away from the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. After removing the license plate from the car, the two men returned to Kansas.

On April 17 and April 18, the men loaded 108 50-pound (23 kg) bags of explosive-grade ammonium nitrate fertilizer, three 55-US-gallon (210 l) drums of liquid nitromethane, several crates of explosive Tovex, seventeen bags of ANFO, and spools of shock tube and cannon fuse into the truck. The two then drove to Geary County State Lake where they nailed boards into the floor to hold the barrels in place and mixed the chemicals together using plastic buckets and a bathroom scale. McVeigh then added a dual-fuse ignition system that he could access through the truck's front cab. McVeigh also included more explosives on the driver's side of the cargo bay, which he could ignite with his Glock 21 pistol if the primary fuses failed. After finishing the construction of the truck-bomb, the two men separated. Nichols returned to Herington, Kansas; McVeigh drove the truck to Oklahoma City. Later during McVeigh's trial, a witness stated that McVeigh claimed to have arranged the barrels in order to form a shaped charge. Three additional empty blue steel barrels were in the cargo hold behind the main charge, "as a decoy." According to Terry Nichols, 12 bags of ammonium nitrate fertilizer were left loose and placed between the barrels and the aluminum truck casing.

Two holes were drilled in the cab of the Ryder truck and two holes were drilled in the van of the Ryder truck. One green cannon fuse was run through each hole into the cab, under the seat. These time-delayed fuses led from the cab of the truck to the non-electric Primadet blasting caps; which were set up to initiate, with millisecond precision, the 350 pounds of Tovex Blastrite Gel "sausages"; which in turn set off the configuration of barrels. According to Nichols, a major booster charge of Tovex was put at the V-point in the configuration of barrels, and the barrels also had some Tovex in them; Kinepak was mixed and put in the major booster charge. Of the thirteen non-empty barrels, nine were filled with ammonium nitrate and nitro-methane, and four were filled with the fertilizer and about four gallons of diesel fuel. Nine bags of unopened fertilizer remained stacked in the driver's side of the cab. This was because there had not been enough nitro-methane to mix all 13 barrels. Despite the ready availability of diesel fuel at service stations, it was not possible to make up for the shortage of nitromethane by obtaining more diesel fuel to add to the fertilizer, because the blasting caps were too unstable and the nitromethane too unstable and easily degradable after mixing it with explosive-grade fertilizer, to transport long distances in the back of a bumpy rental truck. It is speculated, by investigative journalist J.D. Cash and others, that may have been other explosives stored in the offices by federal law enforcement agents in the course of their duties. Government officials denied knowledge of such storage.

At dawn on April 19, as he drove toward the Murrah Federal building, McVeigh carried with him an envelope whose contents included pages from The Turner Diaries, a fictional account of modern-day revolutionary activists who rise up against the government and create a full scale race war. He wore a printed T-shirt with the motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Sic semper tyrannis ("Thus ever to tyrants", which was shouted by John Wilkes Booth immediately after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln) and "The tree of liberty must be refreshed time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (from Thomas Jefferson). As the truck approached the building, at 8:57 a.m. CST, McVeigh lit the five-minute fuse. Three minutes later, still a block away, he lit the two-minute fuse. He parked the Ryder truck in a drop-off zone situated under the building's day care center, locked the vehicle, and headed to his getaway vehicle.

Bombing

At 9:02 a.m. CST, the Ryder truck, containing about 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitromethane, and diesel fuel mixture, detonated in front of the north side of the nine-story Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.The blast destroyed a third of the building and created a 30-foot (9.1 m) wide, 8-foot (2.4 m) deep crater on NW 5th Street next to the building.

The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings in a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars around the site, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings (the broken glass alone accounted for 5% of the death total and 69% of the injuries outside the Murrah Federal building). The destruction of the buildings left several hundred people homeless and shut down multiple offices in downtown Oklahoma City.

The effects of the blast were equivalent to over 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) of TNT, and could be heard and felt up to 55 miles (89 km) away. Seismometers at the Omniplex Science Museum in Oklahoma City, 4.3 miles (6.9 km) away, and in Norman, Oklahoma, 16.1 miles (25.9 km) away, recorded the blast as measuring approximately 3.0 on the Richter scale.

Arrests

Within 90 minutes of the explosion, McVeigh was arrested. He was traveling north out of Oklahoma City on Interstate 35 near Perry in Noble County, when an Oklahoma State Trooper stopped him for driving his yellow 1977 Mercury Marquis without a license plate. The arrest was for having a concealed weapon.

Later that day, McVeigh was linked to the bombing via the Vehicle identification number (VIN) of an axle and the remnants of a license plate from the destroyed Ryder truck that had been rented under his alias name, Robert Kling. Federal agents created police sketches with the assistance of owner Eldon Elliot of the Ryder Rental agency in Junction City. McVeigh was identified by Lea McGown of the Dreamland Motel, who remembered McVeigh parking a large yellow Ryder truck in the lot; moreover, McVeigh had signed in under his real name at the motel, and the address he signed in under matched the one on his forged license and the charge sheet at the Perry Police Station. Prior to signing in to the hotel, McVeigh had used fake names for his transactions; McGown noted, "People are so used to signing their own name that when they go to sign a phony name, they almost always go to write, and then look up for a moment as if to remember the new name they want to use. That's what [McVeigh] did, and when he looked up I started talking to him, and it threw him."

After a court hearing on the gun charges, but before McVeigh was released, federal agents took him into custody as they continued their investigation into the bombing. Rather than talk to investigators about the bombing, McVeigh demanded an attorney. Having been tipped off by the arrival of police and helicopters that a bombing suspect was inside, a restless crowd began forming outside the jail. McVeigh's requests for a bulletproof vest or transport by helicopter were denied.

Federal agents then searched for Nichols, a friend of McVeigh. Two days after the bombing, Nichols learned that FBI investigators were looking for him, and he turned himself in. After a nine-hour interrogation, he was formally held in federal custody until his trial for involvement in the bombing.

Ibrahim Ahmad, a Jordanian-American traveling from his home in Oklahoma City to visit family in Jordan was also arrested in what was described as an "initial dragnet". Due to his background, the media initially was concerned that Middle Eastern terrorists were behind the attack. Further investigation, however, cleared Ahmad in the bombing.

Casualties

At the end of the day of the bombing, twenty people were confirmed dead, including six children, with over a hundred injured. The toll eventually reached 168 confirmed dead, not including an unmatched leg that might be from a possible, unidentified 169th victim. Of these, 163 were killed in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, one person in the Athenian Building, one woman in a parking lot across the street, a man and woman in the Oklahoma Water Resources building, and a rescue worker struck in the head by debris.

The victims ranged in age from three months to seventy-three, not including unborn children of three pregnant women. Nineteen of the victims were children, including fifteen who were in the America's Kids Day Care Center. The bodies of all 168 victims were identified at a temporary morgue set up at the scene. Twenty-four people, including sixteen specialists, used full-body X-rays, dental examinations, fingerprinting, blood tests, and DNA testing to identify the bodies. The bomb injured 853 people with the majority of the injuries ranging from abrasions to severe burns and bone fractures.

Response and relief

Rescue efforts

At 9:03:25 a.m. CST, the first of over 1,800 9-1-1 calls related to the bombing was received by Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA). By that time, EMSA ambulances and members of the police and firefighters were already headed to the scene, having heard the blast. Nearby citizens, who had also witnessed or heard the blast, arrived to assist the victims and emergency workers. Within 23 minutes of the bombing, the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) was set up and included representatives of the state departments of public safety, human services, military, health, and education. Assisting the SEOC were agencies such as the National Weather Service, the Air Force, the Civil Air Patrol, and the American Red Cross.

Immediate assistance also came from 465 members of the Oklahoma National Guard, who arrived within the hour to provide security, and from members of the Department of Civil Emergency Management. Within the first hour, fifty people were rescued from the Murrah Federal building. Victims were sent to every hospital in the area. By the end of the day, 153 victims had been treated at St. Anthony Hospital, eight blocks from the blast, over 70 at Presbyterian, 41 at University, and 18 at Children's. Temporary silences were observed so listening devices capable of detecting human heartbeats could be used to locate survivors. In some cases, limbs had to be amputated without anesthetic (avoided due to its potential to cause a deadly coma) in order to free those trapped under rubble. Evacuations of the scene were sometimes forced by the receipt by police of tips claiming that more bombs had been planted in the building.

At 10:28 a.m. CST, rescuers found what they believed to be a second bomb. Some rescue workers initially refused to leave until police ordered a mandatory evacuation of a four-block area around the site. However about 45 minutes later the device was determined to be a simulator used in training federal agents and bomb-sniffing dogs, and relief efforts were continued. The last survivor, a fifteen-year-old girl found under the base of the collapsed building, was discovered at about 7:00 p.m. CST.

In the days following the blast, over 12,000 people participated in relief and rescue operations. FEMA activated 11 of its Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces, comprising a team of 665 rescue workers who assisted in rescue and recovery operations. In an effort to recover additional bodies, 100 to 350 tons of rubble were removed from the site each day until April 29. Twenty-four K-9 units and out-of-state dogs were brought in to search for survivors and locate bodies amongst the building refuse.

Rescue and recovery efforts were concluded at 11:50 p.m. on May 4, with the bodies of all but three victims recovered. For safety reasons, the building was to be demolished shortly afterward. However, McVeigh's attorney, Stephen Jones, called for a motion to delay the demolition until the defense team could examine the site in preparation for the trial. More than a month after the bombing, at 7:01 a.m. on May 23, the Murrah Federal building was demolished. The final three bodies, those of two credit union employees and a customer, were recovered. For several days after the building's demolition, trucks hauled 800 short tons (730 MT) of debris a day away from the site. Some of the debris was used as evidence in the conspirators' trials, incorporated into parts of memorials, donated to local schools, and sold to raise funds for relief efforts.

Humanitarian aid

The national humanitarian response was immediate and, in some cases, even overwhelming. Rescue workers received large amounts of donated goods such as wheelbarrows, bottled water, rain gear, and even football helmets. The sheer number of donated goods caused logistical and inventory control problems until drop-off centers were set up to accept and sort the goods. The Oklahoma Restaurant Association, which was holding a trade show in the city, assisted rescue workers by providing 15,000 to 20,000 meals over a ten-day period. Requests for blood donations were met by local residents Of the 9,000 units of blood donated to the victims, only 131 units were used, the rest saved in blood banks.

Federal and state government aid

At 9:45 a.m. CST, Governor Frank Keating declared a state of emergency and ordered all non-essential workers located in the Oklahoma City area to be released from their duties for their safety. President Bill Clinton learned about the bombing around 10:00 a.m. while he was meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Çiller at the White House. At 4:00 p.m. CST, President Clinton declared a federal emergency in Oklahoma City and spoke to the nation:

The bombing in Oklahoma City was an attack on innocent children and defenseless citizens. It was an act of cowardice and it was evil. The United States will not tolerate it, and I will not allow the people of this country to be intimidated by evil cowards.

Four days later, on April 23, Clinton spoke from Oklahoma City.

There was no major federal financial assistance provided to the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing, However, the Murrah Fund was established and collected over $300,000 from federal grants. Additionally, individuals around the country donated $15 million to aid the disaster relief and to compensate the victims. Later, a committee chaired by Daniel J Kurtenbach of Goodwill Industries provided financial assistance to the survivors.

Children terrorized

In the wake of the bombing, the national media seized upon the fact that 19 of the victims had been children. Schools across the country were dismissed early and ordered closed. A photograph of firefighter Chris Fields emerging from the rubble with infant Baylee Almon, who later died in a nearby hospital, was reprinted worldwide and became a symbol of the attack. The images and thoughts of children dying terrorized many children who, as demonstrated by later research, showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, showed concern about how children were reacting to the bombing. They requested that aides talk to child care specialists about how to talk to the children regarding the bombing. President Clinton spoke to the nation three days after the bombing, saying: "I don't want our children to believe something terrible about life and the future and grownups in general because of this awful thing...most adults are good people who want to protect our children in their childhood and we are going to get through this". On the Saturday after the bombing, April 22, the Clintons gathered children of employees of federal agencies that had offices in the Murrah Building, and in a live nationwide television and radio broadcast, addressed their concerns.

Media coverage

Hundreds of news trucks and members of the press arrived at the site to cover the story. The press immediately noticed that the bombing took place on the second anniversary of the Waco incident. Many initial news stories, however, hypothesized the attack had been undertaken by Islamic terrorists, such as those who had masterminded the World Trade Center bombing two years before. Some responded to these reports by attacking Muslims and people of Arab descent.

As the rescue effort wound down, the media interest shifted to the investigation, arrests, and trials of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and on the search for an additional suspect named "John Doe 2". Several witnesses had claimed to see the second suspect with McVeigh who did not resemble Nichols.

Trials and sentencing of the conspirators

The FBI led the official investigation, known as OKBOMB, with Weldon L. Kennedy acting as Special Agent in charge. It was the nation's largest criminal case in history, with FBI agents conducting 28,000 interviews, amassing 3.5 short tons (3.2 MT) of evidence, and collecting nearly one billion pieces of information. The investigation led to the separate trials and convictions of McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier.

Timothy McVeigh

The United States was represented by a team of prosecutors, led by Joseph Hartzler. In his opening statement, Hartzler outlined McVeigh's motivations and the evidence against him. McVeigh's motivation, he said, was hatred of the government, which began during his tenure in the Army as he read The Turner Diaries, and grew through the increase in taxes and the passage of the Brady Bill, and grew further with the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents. The prosecution called 137 witnesses, including Michael Fortier, Michael's wife Lori Fortier, and McVeigh's sister, Jennifer McVeigh, all of whom testified on McVeigh's hatred of the government and demonstrated desire to take militant action against it. Both Fortiers testified that McVeigh had told them of his plans to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building. Michael revealed how McVeigh had chosen the date and Lori testified that she created the false identification card that McVeigh used to rent the Ryder truck.

In his trial, whose venue had been moved from Oklahoma City to Denver, Colorado, McVeigh was represented by a defense counsel team of six principal attorneys led by Stephen Jones. According to Linder, McVeigh wanted Jones to present a "necessity defense"––which would argue that he was in "imminent danger" from the government (that his bombing was intended to prevent future crimes by the government, such as the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents). Contrary to his client's wishes, however:

Jones opted for a strategy of trying to poke what holes he could in the prosecution's case, thus raising a question of reasonable doubt. In addition, Jones believed that McVeigh was taking far more responsibility for the bombing than was justified and that McVeigh, although clearly guilty, was only a player in a large conspiracy.... In his book about the McVeigh case, Others Unknown: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing Conspiracy, Jones wrote: "It strains belief to suppose that this appalling crime was the work of two men—any two men...Could [this conspiracy] have been designed to protect and shelter everyone involved? Everyone, that is, except my client...[.]" Jones considered presenting McVeigh as "the designated patsy" in a cleverly designed plot, but his own client opposed the strategy and Judge Matsch, after a hearing, ruled the evidence concerning a larger conspiracy to be too insubstantial to be admissible.

In addition to arguing that the bombing could not have been accomplished by two men alone but must have been perpetrated by a conspiracy of more people whom McVeigh was protecting, Jones also attempted to raise reasonable doubt by arguing that no one had seen McVeigh near the scene of the crime and that the investigation into the bombing had lasted merely two weeks. During the trial, Linder observed further:

The defense presented 25 witnesses over just a one-week period. The most effective witness for the defense might have been Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, who provided a damning critique of the FBI's sloppy investigation of the bombing site and its handling of other key evidence. Unfortunately for McVeigh, while Whitehurst could show that FBI techniques made contamination of evidence possible, he could not point to any evidence (such as trace evidence of explosives on the shirt McVeigh wore on April 19) that he knew to be contaminated.

The jury deliberated for twenty-three hours. On June 2, 1997, McVeigh was found guilty on eleven counts of murder and conspiracy. Although the defense argued for a reduced sentence of life imprisonment, McVeigh was sentenced to death. After President George W. Bush approved the execution (since McVeigh was a federal inmate, federal law dictates that the President must approve the execution) he was executed by lethal injection at a U.S. penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, on June 11, 2001. The execution was televised on closed-circuit television so that the relatives of the victims could witness his death.

Terry Nichols

Terry Nichols stood trial twice. He was first tried by the federal government in 1997 and found guilty of conspiring to build a weapon of mass destruction and of eight counts of involuntary manslaughter of federal officers. After he received the sentence on June 4, 1998 of life-without-parole, the State of Oklahoma in 2000 sought a death-penalty conviction on 161 counts of first-degree murder. On May 26, 2004 the jury found him guilty on all charges, but deadlocked on the issue of sentencing him to death. Presiding Judge Steven W. Taylor then determined the sentence of 161 consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole. He is currently held in the ADX Florence Federal Prison.

Michael Fortier

Though Michael Fortier was considered an accomplice and co-conspirator, he agreed to testify against McVeigh in exchange for a modest sentence and immunity for his wife. He was sentenced on May 27, 1998 to twelve years in prison and fined $200,000 for failing to warn authorities about the attack. As discussed by Jeralyn Merritt, who served on Timothy McVeigh's criminal defense team, on January 20, 2006, after serving eighty-five percent of his sentence, Fortier was released for good behavior into the Witness Protection Program and given a new identity.

Others

No "John Doe #2" was ever identified, nothing conclusive was ever reported regarding the owner of the missing leg, and the government never openly investigated anyone else in conjunction with the bombing. Though the defense teams in both McVeigh's and Nichols trials tried to suggest that others were involved, Judge Steven W. Taylor, who presided over the Nichols trial, found no credible, relevant, or legally admissible evidence of anyone other than McVeigh and Nichols as having directly participated in the bombing.

Aftermath

Until the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing was the deadliest act of terror against the U.S. on American soil. Prior to this, the deadliest act of terror against the United States was the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 189 Americans. In response, the U.S. Government enacted several pieces of legislation, notably the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. In response to the trials of the conspirators being moved out-of-state, the Victim Allocution Clarification Act of 1997 was signed on March 20, 1997 by President Clinton to allow the victims of the bombing (and the victims of any other future acts of violence) the right to observe trials and to offer impact testimony in trials. In response to passing the legislation, Clinton stated that "when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in."

In the weeks following the bombing, the federal government ordered that all federal buildings in all major cities be surrounded with prefabricated Jersey barriers to ward off similar attacks. As part of a longer plan for United States federal building security, most of these temporary barriers have since been replaced with permanent security barriers which look more attractive and are driven deep into the ground for sturdiness. Furthermore, all new federal buildings must now be constructed with truck-resistant barriers and with deep setbacks from surrounding streets to minimize their vulnerability to truck bombs. FBI buildings, for instance, must be set back 100 feet from traffic. The total cost of improving security in federal buildings across the country in response to the bombing reached over $600 million.

In June 1995, the General Services Administration issued Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities, also known as The Marshals Report. These findings resulted in a thorough evaluation of security at all federal buildings and a system for classifying risks at over 1,300 federal facilities owned or leased by the federal government. Federal sites were divided into five security levels ranging from Level 1 (minimum security needs) to Level 5 (maximum).

The Alfred P. Murrah Building was a Level 4 building. Among the 52 security improvement factors were parking, lighting, physical barriers, closed circuit television monitoring, site planning and access, vehicular circulation, standoff distance (which is the setback of the building envelope from the street to mitigate truck bomb damage), hardening of building exteriors to increase blast resistance, glazing systems to reduce flying glass shards and fatalities, and structural engineering design to prevent progressive collapse.

According to Mark Potok, director of Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, law enforcement officials have foiled over fifty domestic terror plots since the Oklahoma City bombing. The attacks were prevented due to measures established by the local and federal government to increase security of high-priority targets and following-up on hate groups within the United States.

The attack led to improvements in engineering for the purpose of constructing buildings that would be better able to withstand tremendous forces. Oklahoma City's new federal building was constructed using those improvements. The National Geographic Channel documentary series Seconds From Disaster suggested that the Murrah Building would probably have survived the blast had it been built according to California earthquake design codes.

Even many who agreed with some of McVeigh's politics viewed his act as counterproductive. Much of the criticism focused on the deaths of innocent children. Bob Murphy of Anti-State argued that the attack would "lead ordinary Americans to trust the government when it says those who oppose it are crazy fanatics." Liz Michael opined, "McVeigh was wrong. Not because he was a killer. Because killing is often necessary and sometimes good, even godly. McVeigh was wrong because he was a bad soldier. His target was wrong. His timing was wrong. And there was no clear moral grounding in his plan." These critics, and others, expressed chagrin that McVeigh had not assassinated specific government leaders instead.

Indeed, McVeigh had considered assassinating Attorney-General Janet Reno and others rather than bombing a building, and after the bombing said that sometimes he wished he had committed a series of assassinations instead. However, Outpost of Freedom decried the labeling of McVeigh as a "baby-killer," arguing that the blame for the children's death rested on the parents who brought them to a federal building and the government that maintained a day care center there despite Government Accounting Office recommendations; sentiments echoed by McVeigh himself in An Essay on Hypocrisy. It criticized the patriot media for taking a "politically correct position in expressing concern and declaring the event as an unnecessary tragedy." Those who expressed sympathy for McVeigh typically described his deed as an act of war, as in the case of Gore Vidal's essay, The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh.

Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum

For two years after the bombing, the only memorial for the victims were stuffed animals, crucifixes, letters, and other personal items left by thousands of people at a security fence surrounding the site of the building.

Although multiple ideas for memorials were sent to Oklahoma City within the first day after the bombing, an official memorial planning committee did not form until early 1996. The Murrah Federal Building Memorial Task Force, composed of 350 members, was established to formulate plans in choosing a memorial to commemorate the victims of the bombing. On July 1, 1997, the winning design was chosen unanimously by a 15-member panel from 624 submissions. The memorial, which has become part of the National Park Service, was designed by Oklahoma City architects Hans and Torrey Butzer and Sven Berg. It was dedicated by President Clinton on April 19, 2000, exactly five years after the bombing.

The museum includes a reflecting pool flanked by two large "gates", one inscribed with the time 9:01, the opposite with 9:03, the pool between representing the moment of the blast. On the south end of the memorial is a field full of symbolic bronze and stone chairs—one for each person lost, arranged based on what floor they were on. The chairs represent the empty chairs at the dinner tables of the victim's family. The seats of the children killed are smaller than those of the adults lost. On the opposite side is the "survivor tree", part of the building's original landscaping that somehow survived the blast and fires that followed it. The memorial left part of the foundation of the building intact, so that visitors can see the scale of the destruction. Around the western edge of the memorial is a portion of the chain link fence which had amassed over 800,000 personal items which were later collected by the Oklahoma City Memorial Foundation.

On a corner adjacent to the memorial is a sculpture titled "And Jesus Wept", erected by St. Joseph's Catholic Church. St. Joseph's, one of the first brick and mortar churches in the city, was almost completely destroyed by the blast. The statue is not part of the memorial itself but is popular with visitors nonetheless. North of the memorial is the Journal Record Building which now houses the Oklahoma City National Memorial Museum, an affiliate of the National Park Service. Also in the building is the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, a non-partisan think tank.

Remembrance

From April 17 to April 24, 2005, to mark the tenth anniversary of the bombing in Oklahoma City, the Oklahoma City National Memorial held a week-long series of events known as the "National Week of Hope."

On April 19, as in previous years, the tenth anniversary of the bombing observances began with a service at 09:02 CST, marking the moment the bomb went off, with the traditional 168 seconds of silence - one second for each person who was killed as a result of the blast. The service also included the traditional reading of the names, read by children to symbolize the future of Oklahoma City.

Vice President Dick Cheney, former president Clinton, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry, former Oklahoma governor Frank Keating, and other political dignitaries attended the service and gave speeches in which they emphasized that "goodness overcame evil". The relatives of the victims and the survivors of the blast also made note of it during the service at First United Methodist Church in Oklahoma City.

President George W. Bush made note of the anniversary in a written statement, part of which echoes his remarks on the execution of Timothy McVeigh in 2001: "For the survivors of the crime and for the families of the dead the pain goes on." Bush was invited but did not attend the service because he was en route to Springfield, Illinois to dedicate the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum. Vice President Cheney presided over the service in his place.

Conspiracy theories involving more perpetrators

Some people believe that a conspiracy is covering up the existence of additional explosives planted within the Murrah building. Multiple websites show alleged cover-ups and other possible perpetrators who helped in planning the bombing.

Conspiracy theorists say that there are several discrepancies, such as an inconsistency between the observed destruction and the bomb used by McVeigh. One vocal proponent of this view is Brigadier General Benton K. Partin. Many critics of the official explanation point to a blast effects study published in 1997, utilizing test results from the Eglin Air Force Base, which concluded that "it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April, 1995 to a single truck bomb containing 4,800 lbs. of ANFO" so that the damage to the Murrah building was "not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself".Some experts ascribe the unusually large blast pattern to a thermobaric weapon, utilizing highly flammable metal particles mixed with a liquid high explosive. When ignited in a two-stage process, the device creates a super-high heat and pressure blast capable of flattening buildings.

Several witnesses reported a second person seen around the time of the bombing; investigators would later call him "John Doe 2". There are several theories that the second person was also affiliated with the bombing and was even a possible foreign connection to McVeigh and Nichols. Although the U.S. government did arrest an Army private who resembled an artist's rendering of John Doe 2 based on eyewitness accounts, they later released him after their investigation reported he was not involved with the bombing.

Some people have argued that seismic recordings of the event indicated multiple bombs. This contention was refuted by U.S. Geological Survey and Oklahoma Geological Survey scientists, who recorded and analyzed seismic signals from the demolition of the Murrah building. These demolition seismograms showed that the two pulses of energy recorded in Norman, OK from the bombing were due to the seismic response of the Earth rather than to multiple blast sources.

In 2006, congressman Dana Rohrabacher said that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations, which he chaired, would investigate whether the Oklahoma City bombers had assistance from foreign sources. On December 28, 2006, when asked about fueling conspiracy theories with his questions and criticism, Rohrabacher told CNN: "There's nothing wrong with adding to a conspiracy theory when there might be a conspiracy, in fact."

References

City of Oklahoma City Document Management. Final Report: Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Bombing April 19, 1995. Stillwater: Department of Central Services Central Printing Division, 1996. ISBN 0-8793-9130-8.

Giordano, Geraldine. The Oklahoma City Bombing. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2003. ISBN 0-8239-3655-4.

Irving, Clive, ed. In Their Name. New York: Random House, 1995. ISBN 0-679-44825-X

Linenthal, Edward. The Unfinished Bombing: Oklahoma City in American Memory. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. ISBN 0-19-513672-1.

Michel, Lou, and Dan Herbeck. American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh & The Oklahoma City Bombing. New York: ReganBooks, 2001. ISBN 0-06-039407-2.

Serano, Richard A. One of Ours: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1998. ISBN 0-393-02743-0.

Further reading

Sanders, Kathy, "After Oklahoma City: A Grieving Grandmother Uncovers SHOCKING TRUTHS about the bombing...and Herself". Master Strategies: Arlington, TX, 2005. ISBN 0-9766485-0-4 (paperback).

Wright, Stuart A. Patriots, Politics, and the Oklahoma City Bombing. Cambridge Studies in Contentious Politics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge UP, 2007. ISBN 978-0521872645 (hardcover). ISBN 978-0521694193 (paperback). (Catalogue description includes summary, table of contents, and excerpts from reviews.)

Wikipedia.org

McVeigh Sentenced to Die for Oklahoma City Bombing

CNN.com

June 13, 1997

DENVER (CNN) -- Despite an emotional last-minute plea from his parents, Timothy James McVeigh was sentenced to death Friday for his role in the worst case of terrorism in U.S. history -- the Oklahoma City bombing.

The seven-man, five-woman panel unanimously chose death by lethal injection for the 29-year-old Gulf War veteran, after deliberating for 11 hours over two days. Anything less than a unanimous verdict would have meant life in prison without parole. The jury also could have opted to send the case back to the judge and let him determine the sentence.

Penalty is for killing federal agents

The same federal jury who sentenced McVeigh convicted him of murder and conspiracy last week in the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building that killed 168 people.

He was tried for conspiracy to commit the attack and for the deaths of eight federal law agents who were in the building when a massive diesel fuel-fertilizer bomb ripped the front off the nine-story building.

McVeigh was charged along with his Army buddy Terry Nichols, who will be tried at a later date. Testimony for the penalty phase in McVeigh's trial ended Wednesday, and deliberations began Thursday after the completion of closing arguments.

Jurors never heard from McVeigh himself during the four-day penalty phase of the trial. Instead, 27 witnesses were called to portray him as a friendly child and first-rate soldier who left the Gulf War disillusioned and restless.

Supporting a contention made by the prosecution, the defense argued that the 1993 siege near Waco, Texas, became a source of bitter anger for McVeigh. About 80 members of the Branch Davidian cult were killed during a federal assault exactly two years before the Oklahoma blast.

At times, jurors were in tears

Prosecutors, citing vivid testimony from blast survivors and victims, argued that the blast was so lethal and destructive that McVeigh deserved death. Several prosecution witnesses brought jurors to tears with their accounts of mayhem, heroism and random death in Oklahoma City.

Although all of the jurors, before they were selected, told the court they would be willing to consider the death penalty, Colorado juries have tended to be reluctant to sentence defendants to death. The state has five people on death row, and hasn't executed anyone since 1967.

A passion for weapons

The trial was moved to Denver by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch because he said McVeigh could not "obtain a fair and impartial trial at any place" in Oklahoma.

The son of a General Motors auto worker from a rural area near Buffalo, New York, McVeigh went on to become an Army platoon leader, serving in a Bradley Fighting vehicle during the Gulf War. After his return to the United States, he was discharged from the Army and took a series of odd jobs, drifting across the country and spending time with militia groups. Both sides offered testimony during the trial on his passion for weapons and his zealous opposition to gun control.

McVeigh executed

Chicago Tribune

June 11 2001

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. -- Timothy James McVeigh, who murdered 168 people and maimed hundreds of others in what he believed was an act of patriotism, was put to death by lethal injection early today.

The 33-year-old decorated Persian Gulf War veteran who masterminded America's worst act of domestic terrorism was pronounced dead at 7:14 a.m. CDT.

Strapped to a gray padded execution table inside the federal government's sterile, sea green-tiled death chamber, McVeigh received a lethal combination of drugs that rendered him unconscious, arrested his breathing and stopped his heart. In minutes, the small-town boy who became an army of one and ultimately this country's worst mass murderer was forever silenced.

McVeigh made no final remarks but gave witnesses a handwritten copy of English poet William Ernest Henley's 1875 poem, "Invictus": "In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud. Under the bludgeonings of chance my head is bloody, but unbowed..." "I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul."

Survivors and family members took solace in McVeigh's death. Janice Smith, whose 46-year-old brother, Lanny Scroggins, died in the bombing, prayed with her children at the Oklahoma City National Memorial, then left after getting word that McVeigh was dead. "It's over,'' she said. ``We don't have to continue with him anymore.'' Earlier, a silent vigil began without fanfare -- 168 minutes, one minute for each victim killed in the tragedy.

McVeigh's execution was witnessed by 10 survivors and victims' relatives from the bombing of Oklahoma City's Murrah federal building on April 19, 1995. Meanwhile, about 600 miles away, an estimated 300 people gathered in a large, square room of a federal prisoner transfer facility near Will Rogers World Airport to watch the execution unfold on a large video screen.

McVeigh was permitted to choose six witnesses and selected five: his lawyers, Robert Nigh Jr. and Nathan Chambers; Cate McCauley, a former member of his defense team; and Buffalo (N.Y.) News reporter and biographer Lou Michel. A fifth witness, author Gore Vidal, announced he could not attend.

The execution took place inside the federal government's death chamber at Terre Haute's sprawling, red-brick U.S. penitentiary complex. It was the federal government's first execution since 1963, when Victor Feguer was hanged for the crime of kidnapping.

McVeigh's execution came nearly four years to the day from his conviction. McVeigh at first appealed, but by last December, he decided to waive any further appeals and await his execution. He initially was scheduled to be executed May 16.

Then, just five days before he was supposed to die, U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft postponed the execution to give McVeigh's lawyers time to sift through 4,400 pages of investigative documents that had never been turned over to McVeigh's defense team before his 1997 trial.

The embarrassing disclosure led Ashcroft to reschedule the execution to today, angering survivors and victims' relatives who had prepared themselves emotionally and logistically for the May 16 date. Once ready to die, McVeigh asked his lawyers to request a stay from the trial judge in his case, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch. Last week Matsch refused, and when the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Matsch's ruling, McVeigh told his lawyers he had no desire to appeal to a higher court.

Two other men were convicted for their involvement. Terry Nichols was convicted of manslaughter and conspiracy for helping McVeigh and was sentenced to life in prison. He still faces state murder charges. Another friend of McVeigh's, Michael Fortier, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for failing to warn law enforcement authorities about McVeigh and Nichols' plans.

The Buffalo News published letters from McVeigh on Sunday that had the guise of apology, but repeated the same rationalizations he has clung to since he rigged a Ryder rental truck into a 7,000-pound fertilizer bomb and detonated it in front of the Murrah building. McVeigh wrote that taking 168 lives, including those of 19 children, was a "legit tactic."

He previously has described the bombing as revenge for a mission to avenge the 1993 siege on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. "I'm sorry these people had to lose their lives," McVeigh wrote to the News, his hometown newspaper. "But that's the nature of the beast. It's understood going in what the human toll will be."

Tom Kight, whose 23-year-old daughter, Frankie Merrell, died in the bombing, viewed McVeigh's words as hollow and inconsequential. "I don't see it as an apology," Kight said from Oklahoma City. "His act spoke for itself. He knew innocent men, women and children were going to be killed. "There are a lot of ways of dealing with the government," Kight continued, "but you're never going to change government through terrorism. Whatever his justification might be, 168 people died. Nineteen children died. That just won't do it with me."

McVeigh's parents and two sisters were not at the prison. His father, William McVeigh, has said he wants to remember his son as the boy who played Little League, and the marksman soldier who received a medal for killing two Iraqi soldiers with a single shot from his Bradley vehicle, not the embittered drifter who embraced so-called patriot groups.

At 4:10 a.m. Sunday, McVeigh was moved from the federal prison's special confinement unit into the execution building, where he remained in a 9-foot by 14-foot beige cinder-block cell with a bunk, television, stainless steel sink and toilet. "He's been cooperative through the entire process, and things have gone pretty much as planned," said U.S. Bureau of Prisons spokesman Richard Russell.

During McVeigh's transfer to the execution building, his condemned client looked up into the night sky and gazed at the moon, something he hadn't been able to do in years, said his lawyer, Nigh. McVeigh not only seemed resigned to his fate, he seemed relatively comfortable with it. He caught a couple of hours of sleep early Sunday morning, and had planned to sleep again Sunday night, said Nigh's co-counsel, Chambers.

He watched television on a small black-and-white set in his cell. When he spoke with Chambers and Nigh on Sunday, he appeared at ease and talked freely. "I'd say he is in amazingly good spirits," Chambers said. "He is pleasant to talk to, he continues to be affable. He continues to be rational in his discourse,

He maintains his sense of humor." He was allowed visits with his lawyers or a spiritual adviser up until two hours before the execution. McVeigh had his last meal at noon Sunday: two pints of mint chocolate chip ice cream.

Terre Haute, a city of 60,000, expected legions of demonstrators, but by nightfall Sunday only about 200 had gathered at the prison. Death penalty opponents sat in a circle on dewy grass and, vigil candles in hand, prayed for 168 minutes to represent the 168 victims of the bombing, as well as for McVeigh. "Yes, we find ourselves praying for Timothy McVeigh and his family, and for all those who sit on death row," said Sister Ann Casper, a Sister of Providence from St. Mary-of-the-Woods College near Terre Haute. "I just feel anything I can do to raise my voice against the death penalty is important, and this is how I chose to do it."

Chosen as the site for federal executions because of its central location in the U.S., Terre Haute may be the site of another federal execution in just eight days, when Juan Raul Garza is scheduled to die for his involvement in three drug-related murders. Garza, 43, was the leader of a drug ring that smuggled tons of marijuana into the U.S. between 1983 and 1993. Garza has appealed his death sentence to the U.S. Supreme Court.

New Hampshire Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

"Witnesses Describe McVeigh's Last Minutes," by Mark K. Matthews, Sentinel Staff.

The witnesses pressed their faces to the glass wall of the death chamber, holding photos of their loved ones as they faced Timothy McVeigh just a few feet away. They could see McVeigh as he lay strapped to a gurney, wrapped in a sheet, waiting to die.

They heard the orders for the execution. They watched the fluids flow into his body, and they saw the color of his face change as his life slowly ebbed away.

But the 33-year-old mass murderer could not see the families of his victims. Maybe, they hoped, he would feel their presence. Ronald Brown of Keystone Heights, near Gainesville, was one of the 10 survivors or relatives of McVeigh's 168 victims chosen by lottery to attend the execution in Terre Haute, Ind. "I had one thing on my mind," said Brown, 37, who lost his father-in-law, Robert Westberry, in the blast. "And that was to get through this."

When Brown caught sight of McVeigh, the killer was dressed in a white shirt and khaki pants, an IV already inserted in his right leg. Warden Harley Lappin, standing with his arms crossed, almost at attention, asked McVeigh if he had any final words.

There was a one-minute pause. McVeigh's head remained fixed, his eyes still staring in the camera, rarely blinking. "He could not see us, but I was pretty sure he knew what window he was looking into," Brown said. "He looked toward us first -- nonchalant, like -- and then nodded at his attorneys."

The Associated Press' Rex Huppke, one of the media witnesses, said that minutes before McVeigh took his final breath, he raised his head, strained his neck slightly and tried to acknowledge everyone who would watch him die. Once Lappin issued the order to proceed with the execution, McVeigh swallowed hard. His eyes moved slightly from side to side. His chest moved up and down, and his lips twice puffed air out, as if he were trying to maintain consciousness.

A guard in the witness room announced the first drug had been administered. Ten minutes had passed: It was 8:10 a.m. EDT. McVeigh's eyes remained open, but they began to glass over, started rolling up just slightly. His pale skin began to turn slightly yellow. At 8:11 a.m., the guard said the second drug had been administered. The warden looked straight ahead, glancing down at McVeigh just occasionally. The convicted bomber's lips began to turn the slightest tinge of blue. He was still.

It was 8:14 a.m.

Fight the Death Penalty in the USA

Remaining silent and showing no emotion, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was executed Monday morning. McVeigh died by lethal injection at 7:14 a.m. (8:14 a.m. EDT) at the Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.

McVeigh was executed for the April 19, 1995, attack in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people and wounded hundreds more. The bombing was the deadliest terrorism act ever on U.S. soil. McVeigh's death was the first federal execution since 1963.

The 33-year-old Gulf War veteran did not say a word in the final minutes before his execution. Media witnesses said McVeigh lifted his head and looked at them and then looked at the ceiling.

He died with his eyes open. McVeigh left a handwritten statement quoting Invictus, a 19th century poem by British poet William Ernest Henley. It ends with the lines "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul." McVeigh's body was removed immediately after his execution in a government van, Justice Department officials said. They would not give any information about its destination. McVeigh's body is to be cremated, but his lawyers said information about his remains and any resting place would remain privileged.

'Just a big relief,' witness says

Ten people -- members of the victims' families and survivors of the bombing -- also witnessed the execution from a room beside the death chamber. Paul Howell, whose daughter was killed in the bombing, said McVeigh was expressionless. "What I was hoping for is that we could see some kind of 'I'm sorry,' but we didn't get anything like that. My emotions were that it was just a big relief. Just a big sigh came over my body and it felt real good," Howell said.

More than 650 miles away in Oklahoma City, 232 survivors and family members watched on closed-circuit television. "He actually lifted his head and looked directly in the camera, and it was as if he was looking directly at us," said Larry Whicher, who lost his brother. "His eyes were unblinking. They appeared to be coal black. I truly believe that his eyes were telling me ... that if he could, he would do it all over again."

Bush: 'Not vengeance, but justice'

U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft met with victims' families in Oklahoma City for about a half-hour before the execution. Ashcroft spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said he wanted to be in Oklahoma City to "thank them for their guidance through this process, to thank them from their patience and to again express sorrow for their loss." He did not stay for the closed-circuit viewing.

About a half-hour after the execution, President Bush said that McVeigh had "met the fate he chose for himself six years ago. "The victims of the Oklahoma City bombing have been given not vengeance, but justice," the president said.

McVeigh's attorneys, who had sought a new sentencing hearing after the FBI revealed last month it had withheld thousands of pages of documents during the trial, decried the execution and said it would not end the pain. "If killing McVeigh does not bring peace or closure to them, I suggest to you that it is our fault," said Robert Nigh, who witnessed his client's death with colleague Nathan Chambers. "We have made killing a part of the healing process."

Execution draws international criticism

Following the execution, a steady stream of visitors could be seen at the Oklahoma City National Memorial Center. Some family members could be seen praying and hugging each other in front of the 168 chairs representing the victims of the attack.

Fewer people than expected turned out for protests supporting and opposing the execution. About 75 anti-death penalty protesters had participated in a two-mile march from St. Margaret Mary Catholic Church to the prison on Sunday.

The execution has drawn international criticism. The president of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly called it "sad, pathetic and wrong. "It demonstrated the futility of capital punishment to act as a deterrent, giving him the notoriety he sought in committing this horrendous crime," Lord Russel-Johnson said in a statement. "It is high time the United States rethought its attitude to the death penalty and aligned its position with the great majority of the free and democratic world."

Timothy J. McVeigh & Terry Nichols (168)

Speed freak Timothy McVeigh and fellow white-trash-neo-nazi-ex-soldier Terry Nichols are believed to be responsible for blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City april 19, 1995. McVeigh and Co. thought the assault on the Branch Davidian compound by federal authorities in 1993 was a step towards civil war.

To avenge this transgression by the feds, McVeigh, Nichols, and other possible paramilitary freaks decided to blow up a government building. On the two-year anniversary of the fiery assault in Waco they parked a Ryder rental truck full of gas and fertilizer in front of the federal building and blew it to smithereens killing 168 people, including twenty children.

After much fanfare McVeigh's trial started on April 25, 1997, in the Denver federal courthouse. Joseph Hartzler, the wheelchair-bound leading prosecutor, emotively described McVeigh's intent to declare war on the American Government.

The prosecutor told the jury of McVeigh's disaffection with the US Army after the Gulf War and his failure to join the elite Green Berets. His anger and dissafection led him into the murky world of guns and militias which, in turn paved his way to become the worst mass murderer in US history.

After striking a deal with the prosecution, the government's main witness, Michael Fortier, told the jury had staked out the Alfred E. Murrah Federal Building with McVeigh and that his buddy was so intent on killing federal workers that he was prepared to crash a bomb-filled Ryder truck into the front doors of the building. McVeigh's sister, Jennifer, identified her brother's handwriting on a series of letters he had written in which he expressed his hate for the government and promised retaliation for the Waco massacre.

Other evidence included receipts linking the suspect to large purchases of ammonium nitrate (one of the main components of the bomb). Authorities where able to extract a latent print of the suspect from a rental application for a 20-foot Ryder truck.

Prosecutors also presented a piece of video evidence from a surveillance camera near the federal building placing a Ryder truck in it's vicinity minutes before the blast. Lawyers for Timothy McVeigh rested their case after presenting only three and a half days of evidence. McVeigh did not take the witness stand in his defence and no alibi was offered. Nor did the defense come close to presenting "the rest of the story" that would establish absolute proof of Timmy's innocence, as promised by his chief lawyer, Stephen Jones, in his opening statement.

McVeigh's legal aid defense spent most of their $10 million budget searching for an international terrorist conspiracy as well as investigating homegrown militia movements to blame. All the defense hopes crumbled when the judge ruled that alternate theories about a broader conspiracy were irrelevant to the trial.

Saving their biggest salvo until last, the defense sought to discredit Michael and Lori Fortier, star prosecution witnesses, who said McVeigh told them in detail about bombing the federal building.

The Fortiers, who admitted under oath that they had lied to the Feds, were portrayed by Jones as drug users trying to save their white-trash butts and cash in on film and book rights to their stories. He played FBI wiretaps in which Fortier bragged of making $1 million from the tabloids by concocting a story to mislead agents.

On June 2, after deliberating for four days the federal jury found McVeigh guilty of the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. Making no apologies, on August 14, McVeigh made his first court statement before being formally sentenced to death by lethal injection.

Quoting from a 1928 opinion written by Justice Louis Brandeis in a wiretapping case, McVeigh said: "In the words of Justice Brandeis, our government is the hope, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches people by its example. That's all I have, Your Honor." Unsaid, the remainder of Justice Brandeis's dissention posits that when the government becomes a law-breaker, so should its citizens.

The Oklahoma City Bombing & The Trial of Timothy McVeigh

By Douglas O. Linder (2006)

Prosecutor Joseph Hartzler began his opening statement in the Timothy McVeigh trial by reminding the jury of the terror and the heartbreak: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, April 19th, 1995, was a beautiful day in Oklahoma City -- at least it started out as a beautiful day. The sun was shining. Flowers were blooming. It was springtime in Oklahoma City. Sometime after six o'clock that morning, Tevin Garrett's mother woke him up to get him ready for the day. He was only 16 months old. He was a toddler; and as some of you know that have experience with toddlers, he had a keen eye for mischief. He would often pull on the cord of her curling iron in the morning, pull it off the counter top until it fell down, often till it fell down on him. That morning, she picked him up and wrestled with him on her bed before she got him dressed. She remembers this morning because that was the last morning of his life...."

A bomb carried in a Ryder truck exploded in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City at 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 1995. The bomb claimed 168 innocent lives. That a homegrown, war-decorated American terrorist named Timothy McVeigh drove and parked the Ryder truck in the handicap zone in front of the Murrah Building there is little doubt. In 1997, a jury convicted McVeigh and sentenced him to death. The federal government, after an investigation involving 2,000 agents, also charged two of McVeigh's army buddies, Michael Fortier and Terry Nichols, with advance knowledge of the bombing and participation in the plot. Despite considerable evidence linking various militant white supremacists to the tragedy in Oklahoma City, no other persons faced prosecution for what was--until September 11, 2001--the worst act of terrorism ever on American soil.

The Oklahoma City bombing trials raise questions more interesting than the answers they provide. How, in four years, can an army sergeant and Green Beret aspirant turn so violently against the government he served? If there had been no Waco, would there have been no Oklahoma City? Did McVeigh want to be captured? Why did the government only bring charges against three men in connection with the bombing, when compelling evidence suggests that others played significant roles in the crime? We do not have clear answers to any of these questions--but some possible answers to these and other intriguing questions have come into better focus in the years since the McVeigh and Nichols trials.
The Making of an American Terrorist

The childhood of Timothy McVeigh in Lockport, New York was far from idyllic. His parents divorced in 1978, when Tim was ten, and for the remainder of his school years he lived mainly with his father, Bill McVeigh. Scrawny and unathletic, "Noodle" McVeigh became a target for neighborhood bullies. He attributes a lifelong hatred for bullies of all kinds (a class which, in his view, included an overreaching federal government) to early beatings on softball diamonds and head spinning "swirlies" in flushing toilets.

It is possible that McVeigh's fascination with guns, dating to pre-teen years spent admiring his grandfather's .22-caliber rifle, might have something to do with his view of weapons as the great equalizer. He dedicated himself to developing his marksmanship skills, spending hours shooting holes in soft-drink cans in a ravine. By age 14, Tim McVeigh's interests included survivalism. He began stockpiling food and camping equipment in preparation for possible nuclear attack or a communist overthrow of the United States government.

Although McVeigh performed well on standardized tests in high school, school and its social life had considerably less appeal for him than his world of guns, fringe movements, and science fiction books. He struck classmates as somewhat introverted and disengaged, and his only extracurricular activity was track. Under the entry "future plans" in his high school yearbook, McVeigh wrote: "Take it as it comes, buy a Lamborghini, California girls." Despite his reference to "California girls," McVeigh seemed uncomfortable around women, never had a girlfriend, and--despite his own contentions to the contrary-- might have remained a virgin throughout his entire life.

For two years following high school graduation, McVeigh briefly attended a computer school in Buffalo and took on a series of short-term jobs--then, in May 1988, he enlisted in the U. S. Army. In basic training, the loner McVeigh found a friend in his platoon leader, Terry Nichols, who shared his conservative and somewhat paranoid political views. McVeigh seemed to fit well into the structured life of the military, performing well enough to be promoted to sergeant.

He served in Fort Riley, Kansas, where he met Michael Fortier, the man who would later provide key testimony against him in the Oklahoma City bombing trial. From Fort Riley, McVeigh headed to the Persian Gulf War, where for four months he drove a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and, for his efforts, earned a bronze star. McVeigh seemed well-suited to the details of military life; his army years were probably his best years. Nonetheless, after realizing that he lacked the "right stuff" during the first day of a Green Beret try-out, McVeigh requested and received an honorable discharge in December 1991.

McVeigh's life darkened in the year following his discharge. By the end of 1991, McVeigh was living with his father again in upstate New York, near Buffalo, and working for near minimum wage as a security guard. He fought through bouts of serious depression and thoughts of suicide. Politically, he moved further and further from the mainstream. He began espousing increasingly angry views of U. S. foreign policy, gun control, and what he believed were conspiracies involving the United Nations.

In a March 1992 letter to the Lockport Union-Sun, McVeigh wrote, "AMERICA IS IN DECLINE....Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system?" According to McVeigh, he first began thinking of violent action against the federal government in August 1992 following news of a federal government shoot-out with survivalist Randy Weaver in the Idaho woods.

In January 1993, McVeigh turned in his security company badge, sold most of his belongings, packed his bags, left New York, and began a transient life of gun shows, stays with army buddies, and short-term jobs. Gun shows provided McVeigh with money and a steady stream of acquaintances who shared his anti-gun control and anti-government views.

No event did more to radicalize McVeigh than did the stand-off near Waco, Texas between members of the Branch Davidians, a religious cult headed by David Koresh, and U. S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF). On February 28, 1993, 80 armed BATF agents tried to execute a warrant to search for illegal weapons at the Mount Carmel compound of the Davidians. The raid ended badly, with four agents and six Branch Davidians killed. What would turn out to be a 51-day stand-off began. The federal government's actions so infuriated McVeigh that he traveled to Texas in March to sell bumper stickers with slogans such as "Fear the Government that Fears Your Gun."

McVeigh was watching television at the farm of his army buddy, Terry Nichols, in Michigan on April 19 when the government forces (including the FBI and army) launched their attack against the heavily fortified Davidian compound. Tanks rammed holes in the compound and agents fired CS gas inside. Pyrotechnic devices fired into the building turned it into a raging inferno. When it was over, 74 men, women, and children were found dead inside the compound. McVeigh, in Michigan, sat stunned and appalled: "What is this? What has America become?" He decided the time would come when he would strike back.
The Widening Conspiracy

There is no shortage of people in the United States who have serious beefs with the federal government. In addition to the anti-gun control crowd, there are anti-tax fanatics, white supremacists who resent government's race and immigration policies, and a wide variety of persons who think the United States government is full of communists or "one-world-government" proponents.

Timothy McVeigh had most of these complaints with the government, and over the next two years would find himself in the company of many who shared much of his somewhat paranoid world view. At an April 1993 gun show in Tulsa, for example, McVeigh met Andreas Strassmeir, the grandson of a founder of the Nazi party and then the head of security for Elohim City, a 400-acre compound on the Arkansas-Oklahoma border founded by a white supremacist. (There is interesting, but inconclusive, evidence suggesting that Strassmeir might have been a federal undercover operative.)

In Kingman, Arizona, McVeigh renewed his friendship with army buddy Michael Fortier, an anti-gun control protester with a passion for far-right politics. In the fall of 1993, McVeigh and Terry Nichols made their first visit to Elohim City, a hotbed of anti-government activity--including a plot to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City. (For McVeigh, it would be the first of at least two, and most likely four or more visits to the compound.)

In 1994, McVeigh's activities became overtly criminal. According to FBI reports, it is probable that McVeigh participated in a series of bank robberies around the Midwest with a gang from Elohim City in an effort to raise money for projects involving anti-government violence. McVeigh cased banks, and most likely drove the getaway car in some of the heists. He also plotted and carried out, with the help of either Nichols or Elohim City residents, an armed robbery of an Arkansas gun dealer that he had befriended at various gun shows. Joined by Michael Fortier, he stole various items from an Arizona National Guard armory.

Some of McVeigh's activities bordered on the bizarre. He turned his modest Arizona home into a bunker, renounced his U. S. citizenship, and began making and exploding homemade bombs. (According to a book by two inmates who later shared death row with McVeigh, his recipe for the bomb he would use in Oklahoma City came from a patriot friend, who used his chemistry degree from the University of California as a Meth manufacturer.) About this same time, McVeigh's own use of methamphetamines increased. He became increasingly vocal in promoting his apocalyptic world view.

In July 1994, he and Michael Fortier trespassed on to "Area 51," a top secret government reservation for weapons testing located near Roswell, New Mexico. Two months later, he journeyed to Gulfport, Mississippi to investigate a rumor that the town had become a staging area for United Nations troops and equipment.

A farewell letter written by McVeigh in July to his boyhood friend, Steve Hodge, revealed the evolution of his thinking: "I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will....I have come to peace with myself, my God, and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve, Good vs Evil. Free men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend."

In September 1994, according to both McVeigh and the findings of a federal grand jury, that the ex-Army sergeant began plotting to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The date identified by the grand jury for the start of the conspiracy was September 13. On that day, McVeigh was--according to FBI records showing a receipt for a motel room in Vian, Oklahoma--visiting Elohim City, and probably participating with other anti-government activists in a series of military maneuvers. September 13 also marked the day, coincidentally or not, that a new federal law banning assault weapons became law.

By the end of September 1994, McVeigh's plot (we will, in this trial commentary, call it "McVeigh's plot," although there is a body of evidence to suggest that others played significant planning roles as well) started to unfold. On September 22, he rented a storage unit in Herington, Kansas, that would later be used to house explosive materials. A week later, Terry Nichols bought a ton of ammonium nitrate, a key ingredient in the bomb that would be used in Oklahoma City. Ammonium nitrate is a commonly used agricultural fertilizer and the purchase was made at a farm cooperative in McPherson, Kansas.

October 1994 was a busy month for McVeigh and his co-conspirators. He and Terry Nichols bought a second ton of ammonium nitrate from the same farm cooperative. A burglary at a quarry near Marion, Kansas on October 3 netted McVeigh and Nichols a supply of dynamite and blasting caps. Wearing a biker disguise, McVeigh purchased nearly $3000 work of nitromethane, a racing fuel used in bomb construction, from a Dallas track. In between these supply-gathering missions, McVeigh found time to visit Oklahoma City to inspect the building he had targeted, and to calculate his own position at the time the bomb would be likely to explode.

McVeigh also managed to fit in two separate visits in October to Kingman, Arizona. He rented another storage locker and, with Michael Fortier watching, tested the explosive mixture that he had chosen for the Murrah Building bombing. McVeigh tried to recruit Fortier to assist in the actual bombing, but Fortier balked, and asked, "What about all the people?" McVeigh told Fortier to think of the victims as "storm troopers in Star Wars" who, although individually innocent, "are guilty because they work for the evil empire." Despite the persuasive efforts of McVeigh, Fortier made clear that he had no desire to be in Oklahoma City on the day of the bombing.

McVeigh's close association with white supremacists and other government-haters at Elohim City continued throughout 1994. In addition to joining in bank robberies, there is evidence to suggest that people at the compound were involved in the bombing plot itself. According to BATF informant Carol Howe, who worked undercover in Elohim City, Andreas Strassmeir and Dennis Mahon made the first of three trips to Oklahoma City in November to inspect possible bombing targets. Howe informed her supervisor of these developments. The BATF was sufficiently alarmed by Howe's reports to plan a raid on Elohim City, but following a February 1995 meeting with officials from the FBI and U. S. Attorney's Office, the planned operation is called off. There is no way of knowing whether the raid, if conducted, might have prevented the tragedy in Oklahoma City--but that remains a real possibility.

In March 1995, when Terry Nichols told McVeigh that he wanted to back out of the bombing plan, McVeigh had to turn elsewhere for the assistance he would need in the final stages of the plot. There is speculation that his help came from Elohim City. (McVeigh wanted to be seen at the mastermind of the plot, and in his statements discounted the role of others in the conspiracy, leaving uncertainty as to exactly what roles others played. A polygraph test taken by McVeigh showed him to be truthful in regards to his own role in the bombing, but "evasive" concerning the roles played by other persons not charged in the bombing.)

Fellow death row inmates David Hammer and Jeffrey Paul, in their 2004 book Secrets Worth Dying For, contend that McVeigh revealed to them that he and four members of the Aryan Republican Army, with Elohim City connections, met several times in March and April 1995 in the Arizona desert, where "they conducted 'dry runs' of the 'planting the bomb and getting away.'" The two authors also contend that McVeigh told them he met in Las Vegas a man he called "Poindexter," who provided detailed knowledge on bomb assembly, and would visit with him again at McVeigh's room at the Imperial Hotel in Kingman.

On April 5, two minutes after a phone call to the Ryder Rental Company made from his motel room in Kingman, McVeigh placed a call to Elohim City. The contents of that phone conversation are unknown, of course, but there has been considerable speculation in books and on Internet sites, that McVeigh sought to coordinate bombing plans with some compound residents. Three days after his phone call, McVeigh arrived in Oklahoma, where he was seen at Lady Godiva's, a Tulsa strip club, in the presence of Elohim City militants Andreas Strassmeir and a third man, who some people suggest might have been Michael Brescia. A security camera in a dressing room at the strip club apparently recorded McVeigh telling a stripper, "On April 19, you'll remember me for the rest of your life."

In the final days leading up to the bombing, Aryan Republican Army members (and perhaps bomb expert "Poindexter") converged in east central Kansas where final preparations were being made. (This is a matter of dispute, as the trial record only hints at this possibility and McVeigh told authorities otherwise, but a growing body of evidence suggests several Elohim City activists played critical roles in April 1995. This history is supported by the chronology of events reported in Secrets Worth Dying For, based on McVeigh's alleged death row revelations. Any book written by convicted death row inmates raises credibility concerns, but the inmates' account corresponds fairly well with the timing of various sightings of "John Doe No. 2" and other unidentified persons, as reported by witnesses interviewed by the FBI.) The men most likely camped at Geary Lake, the same place where McVeigh said he received some cash from Terry Nichols on April 14, before he checked into room 25 at the Dreamland Motel in Junction City. A Junction pizza delivery man later told an FBI interviewer that he delivered a pizza to "Bob Kling" in room 25 that night--and that the man taking the pizza was not Timothy McVeigh. "Bob Kling" was, most likely, ARA member Scott Stedeford.

On Easter Sunday, April 16, McVeigh , Nichols, and (probably) "John Doe #2" drove to Oklahoma City. McVeigh and John Doe #2 drove in McVeigh's newly purchased Mercury Marquis, while Nichols followed behind in his pickup. McVeigh parked the old Marquis, which was to be his getaway car, in a lot near the Murrah Building, and then rode back to the Dreamland Motel with Nichols and John Doe #2.

On the afternoon of April 17, McVeigh pulled out of Elliot's Body Shop in Junction City with a Ryder rental truck. In a form he filled out at Elliot's, McVeigh said he planned to use the truck for a four-day trip to Omaha. McVeigh left the Dreamland Motel in the Ryder truck about 4:30 the next morning.

Stories of what happened next diverge considerably. Either alone (one story) or after picking up Brescia (another story), McVeigh drove to his Herington storage locker where he (or they) met (depending on which account you believe) either bomb expert Poindexter or Terry Nichols. (According to Secrets Worth Dying For, McVeigh said Nichols was "a no-show" at the locker. McVeigh is said to have complained, "He and Mike [Fortier] were men who liked to talk tough, but in the end their bitches and kids ruled.") The men--whoever they were--loaded bags of fuses and drums of nitromethane into the truck.

In his authorized biography, McVeigh claimed that he and Nichols also loaded bags of fertilizer into the truck and then completed the assembly of the bomb later that morning at Geary Park. In this version of events, McVeigh set off alone later that afternoon, heading south down I-35 for Oklahoma. He parked the Ryder truck for the night near Ponca City, Oklahoma, sleeping in the cab.

(In his alleged prison revelations to inmates, on the other hand, McVeigh reportedly said that the fertilizer had previously been loaded into a second "decoy" truck, and that two trucks--not one--were driven to Oklahoma City that afternoon. Assembly of the bomb was said to have been completed that night at a warehouse in the Oklahoma capitol city with the help of Poindexter, McVeigh, and A.R.A. member Richard Guthrie. In this far more dramatic version of events, related in Secrets Worth Dying For, Poindexter was killed by a throat slashing administered by an A.R.A. member after bomb assembly was completed. The explanation given to McVeigh for the killing: "Soldier, he was only hired help, not one of us.")

FBI interviews provide some support for each of the conflicting stories. The couple who own the Santa Fe Trail Diner in Herington, the site of McVeigh's storage locker, told federal interviewers that they saw McVeigh, Nichols, and a third man who resembled John Doe #2 having breakfast in their establishment around 8 a.m. on the morning before the bombing. Witnesses also reported seeing a Ryder truck and another pickup truck at Geary Lake an hour or two later. Owners of a steakhouse in Perry, Oklahoma told agents they saw McVeigh and "a stocky companion" eat dinner in their restaurant around 7 in the evening. What to make of these various sightings? We might never know exactly who assisted McVeigh in the 24 hours leading up to the dreadful events of April 19, but the McVeigh-and-McVeigh-alone theory, and the McVeigh-and-just-Nichols theory, both seem to stretch credulity.
April 19, 1995

For Timothy McVeigh, April 19 stood out as a date with multiple historical meanings. It was, probably foremost to the former visitor to Waco, the date in 1995 that the federal government launched its attack on the Branch Davidian compound in Texas, with the horrific loss of life that resulted. McVeigh also knew April 19 to be the date in 1775 that the Battle of Lexington occurred, marking the beginning of the armed uprising by colonialists against British control.

In his getaway car, McVeigh included a bumper sticker that he expected--probably wanted--authorities to find. The bumper sticker carried the quote of Revolutionary War patriot Samuel Adams, "WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FEARS THE PEOPLE, THERE IS LIBERTY. WHEN THE PEOPLE FEAR THE GOVERNMENT, THERE IS TYRANNY." Below the slogan, McVeigh scribbled his own words: "Maybe now, there will be liberty!" April 19 of 1995, McVeigh also certainly knew, was to be the scheduled day of execution in Arkansas for a white supremacist Richard Snell, formerly of Elohim City, who had--years earlier--targeted the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City as the site for a potential bombing.

On the morning that he would become the greatest mass murderer in American history, McVeigh chose to wear a T-shirt with a drawing of Abraham Lincoln and the words shouted by John Wilkes Booth after his assassination of the president, "SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS" ("thus ever to tyrants").

In the version of events related by McVeigh in his authorized biography, American Terrorist, he began driving south in his Ryder truck from Ponca City about 7 a.m. on the morning of April 19, having made an "executive decision" to move up the scheduled timing of the bombing.

In the more sensational version of events related in Secrets Worth Dying For, McVeigh, with Michael Brescia in the passenger seat of the Ryder truck, left an Oklahoma City warehouse around 8 a.m. At 8:45, McVeigh pulled the truck into an Oklahoma City tire store to ask directions. According to the store employee who talked with McVeigh, a second man wearing a baseball cap sat in the passenger seat of the vehicle as McVeigh sought directions to a downtown address six blocks away.

A video camera at 8:55 a.m. captured the Ryder truck as it headed toward the center of downtown Oklahoma City. The Ryder truck drove up NW 5th street shortly before 9:00. McVeigh lit two fuses. He parked the truck in the handicapped zone in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, locked the vehicle, and strode quickly away in the direction of a nearby YMCA building.

At 9:02 a.m., shortly after many parents had dropped their toddlers off at the Murrah Building's second-floor daycare center, the bomb exploded, taking with it much of the building, killing 167 people, injuring another 509, and changing forever the lives of thousands of Oklahomans. (The damage to the building was so extensive that many people believe there were in fact two blasts--the second coming from an ATF secure area where explosives being stored (illegally) were ignited by the truck bomb. Both seismic evidence and witness testimony supports the "two blast theory.")

Two news stories that followed the bombing reported raised interesting questions concerning a wider conspiracy. In Arkansas, prison officials reported that in the days preceding April 19, Richard Snell repeatedly told them to expect a big bombing or explosion on the day of his execution. Execution came for Snell exactly twelve hours after the Oklahoma City bombing.

Meanwhile, in Spokane, Washington, the local paper reported that Chevie Kehoe, a former Elohim City resident staying at a motel in the city, woke early on April 19 to demand that the motel owner turn the lobby television to CNN, telling him that "something is going to happen and it's going to wake people up." The motel owner said that Kehoe became ecstatic when news of the Oklahoma City bombing was announced. "It's about time!" Kehoe is reported to have exclaimed.

About 80 minutes after the bombing, Charles Hanger, an Oklahoma Highway Patrol officer, noticed a McVeigh's Mercury driving north on I-35, about twenty miles from the Kansas border. The car carried no license plate, so the officer pulled the driver over. When McVeigh turned out to be carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, in addition to driving without a license or a vehicle registration, he was arrested, booked, and placed in the county jail in Perry, Oklahoma.

Later that day, amidst the gruesome rubble of downtown Oklahoma City, federal agents found the vehicle identification number for the Ryder truck. Within hours, investigators were in a car headed for Junction City, Kansas, to see who might have rented it.

The Investigation and Trial Preliminaries

By April 21, investigatory trails had led to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Initial speculation that the bombing was the work of Arab extremists faded away. The lead FBI investigator at Waco, Clinton Van Zandt of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, recognized the importance of April 19 and told other agents to look for a "white male...with military experience and ...a member of some militia group...angry for what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco." Agents visiting Elliot's Body Shop in Junction City, the shop that rented the Ryder truck, came away with a description of renter "Robert Kling," a/k/a "John Doe No. 1," a white male with a brush cut and a strong nose. The manager of the Dreamland Motel told them that "John Doe No. 1" looked very much like Timothy McVeigh, who had rented a room at her motel in the days before the bombing. A former co-worker in New York also told authorities that "John Doe No. 1" might be the man he knew as Timothy McVeigh.

A computer check in Washington came up with information that surprised and delighted investigators: Timothy McVeigh was, at present, sitting in a Noble County, Oklahoma jail on unrelated misdemeanor charges. Federal agents traveled to Perry, where they picked up McVeigh--who had been wondering all the while what was taking authorities so long--and transported him by helicopter to Tinker Air Force Base, near Oklahoma City. Before his arraignment that evening, McVeigh met briefly with two court-appointed attorneys. "Yes," he told them, "I did the bombing."

Once authorities had the name of a suspect, it wasn't difficult to identify McVeigh's army buddy, Terry Nichols, as an additional target of suspicion. McVeigh had listed the Nichols farm in Michigan as his home address. Nichols turned himself into authorities in Herington, Kansas, and consented to a search of his home. Searchers found guns, stolen goods, anti-government books, ammonium nitrate, a receipt for the purchase of the ammonium nitrate, Primadet explosive, a hand-drawn map of downtown Oklahoma City, and a telephone card used by McVeigh to make calls in his hunt for bomb-making materials.

Ultimately, the federal government would bring charges against three men: McVeigh and Nichols for conspiracy to bomb a federal building and for the murder of federal agents, and Michael Fortier for not informing authorities about the bombing and lying to federal agents about his knowledge of the bombing. Prosecutors never fully explained the decision not to bring charges against others suspected of playing significant roles in the bombing conspiracy, but apparently they simply believed they lacked the compelling evidence necessary to meet the Constitution's high "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of guilt.

Fortier agreed to assist government prosecutors in return for not facing conspiracy charges, a promise of leniency for his admitted crimes, and the promise that his wife would not be charged. Grand jury indictments of McVeigh and Nichols came on August 11, 1995, three days after Michael and Lori Fortier presented their testimony in the case.

Fearing a fair trial was not possible in Oklahoma, U. S. District Judge Richard Matsch moved the trial to Denver. Judge Matsch also ordered that McVeigh and Nichols be tried separately, with McVeigh's trial to begin first. After receiving authorization from Attorney General Janet Reno to do so, prosecutors announced that they would seek the death penalty in both cases.

The Trial of Timothy McVeigh

Timothy McVeigh never got the trial he wanted. He tried to convince his attorneys to present a "necessity defense" that might allow him to present evidence of the "crimes" of the federal government that his bombing was meant to prevent. McVeigh believed that at least some jurors, were they to hear about the government's actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco, would find the bombing justified. (Given the carnage he caused, McVeigh's hope of sympathetic jurors seems far from realistic.) More importantly to McVeigh, a political trial might provide him the opportunity to make his case against an overreaching federal government in the larger court of public opinion.

McVeigh's lead lawyer was Stephen Jones, a Republican activist who had taken on other politically charged cases. Upon his appointment as lead counsel, Jones told reporters, "My role is as old as the Constitution. Whether I perform professionally will be determined by how I conduct myself, and whether my client is satisfied..."

The relationship between McVeigh and his attorney soon became strained, when McVeigh suspected Jones as being the source of a leak reported in the New York Times that McVeigh had confessed. McVeigh also resented Jones's refusal to push his "necessity defense," a decision made by Jones after research convinced him that McVeigh had no chance of establishing--as he would be required to do to raise the defense--that the federal government put McVeigh in "imminent danger."

Rather than employ a necessity defense, Jones opted for a strategy of trying to poke what holes he could in the prosecution's case, thus raising a question of reasonable doubt. In addition, Jones believed that McVeigh was taking far more responsibility for the bombing than was justified and that McVeigh, although clearly guilty, was only a player in a large conspiracy. It fit McVeigh's personality, Jones thought, for him to sacrifice himself for others who shared his anti-government cause. Jones spent considerable resources investigating McVeigh's possible ties to Arab terrorists and Andreas Strassmeir and his Elohim City associates. So much so, in fact, that McVeigh took to sarcastically calling his attorney "Sherlock Jones." "He was investigating me, not defending me," McVeigh complained.

In his book about the McVeigh case, Others Unknown: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing Conspiracy, Jones wrote: "It strains belief to suppose that this appalling crime was the work of two men--any two men...Could [this conspiracy] have been designed to protect and shelter everyone involved? Everyone, that is, except my client..." Jones considered presenting McVeigh as "the designated patsy" in a cleverly designed plot, but his own client opposed the strategy and Judge Matsch, after a hearing, ruled the evidence concerning a larger conspiracy to be too insubstantial to be admissible.

Jury selection in the McVeigh case began on March 31, 1997, a month after the appearance of a national news story reporting that McVeigh told defense investigators that he bombed the Murrah Building at the time of day he did to "increase the body count." The poorly timed leak probably came when a member of the defense team turned over to the Dallas Morning News a computer disk containing FBI reports, not knowing that the contents of their interview with McVeigh also were on the same disk. McVeigh became convinced that any chance of landing a sympathetic juror, or receiving sympathetic treatment from the judge, evaporated with the story about his interview. Over the course of three weeks, a jury of seven men and five women was chosen.

Opening statements began on April 24, in front of a packed courtroom at the Byron C. Rogers Courthouse and a closed-circuit viewing audience in Oklahoma that included many victims and their families. Lead prosecutor Joseph Hartzler, a wheelchair-bound multiple sclerosis victim, led with a dramatic opening statement that reminded jurors of the tremendous losses suffered two years earlier:

"All the children I mentioned died, and more--dozens and dozens of other men, women, children, cousins, loved ones, grandparents, grandchildren, ordinary Americans going about their business. And the only reason they died...is they were in a building owned by a government that Timothy McVeigh so hated....And the man who committed this act is sitting in this courtroom behind me. After he did so, he fled the scene--and he even avoided damaging his eardrums because he had earplugs with him."

Hartzler scornfully attacked McVeigh's attempts to portray himself as a modern-day patriot "like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams." Hartzler reminded jurors that "our forefathers didn't fight British women and children; they fought other soldiers." And, he said, they fought them fair: "They didn't plant bombs, and run away wearing earplugs."

In his opening statement for the defense, Stephen Jones charged that the government conducted a hasty two-week investigation of the actual bombing and then spent the next two years zeroing in on his client. Critical evidence was ignored, Jones charged, such as the eyewitness testimony of bombing victim Daina Bradley that the person she saw emerge from the Ryder truck by the federal building was black-haired, stocky, and had an olive complexion--"John Doe No. 2," not Timothy McVeigh. Jones saved his greatest wrath for star prosecution witness Michael Fortier, who he labeled as story-changing, dope-dealing conniver. Jones concluded his statement by promising jurors that by the end of the trial he would show them that his client was innocent of all charges.

The prosecution presented 137 witnesses. Some witnesses told of their own heart wrenching losses they suffered that April day. Michelle Rausch, a former journalism student, told of interviewing McVeigh as he peddled anti-government bumper stickers outside of government barricades near Waco in 1993. FBI agents described how they traced evidence found in the bombing to McVeigh. Charles Hanger of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol described his arrest of McVeigh on I-35, while other law enforcement authorities described evidence found in McVeigh's car. Tim Chambers, the Texas seller of the racing fuel nitromethane, described his dealings with the person he now knew to be McVeigh. McVeigh showed little emotion during the nearly month-long parade to the stand.

The Fortiers, Michael and Lori, filled in some of the most critical gaps in the prosecution's case. Lori Fortier admitted to some of her own failings and misdeeds, including drug use, lying to authorities, trafficking in stolen guns, wrapping blasting caps in wrapping paper, and helping McVeigh forge a driver's license. Nonetheless, she presented convincing evidence of McVeigh's key role in the bombing.

For example, Lori Fortier described the day McVeigh laid about fifteen soup cans out on the floor of her trailer to illustrate the type of bombs he hoped to assemble in his truck. In his long and rambling cross-examination, Stephen Jones forced Lori to concede that she could have saved 168 lives with a simple phone call, but chose not to, and that she had been promised full immunity by the federal government in exchange for her incriminating testimony.

Michael Fortier proved to be the state's most important witness. Fortier could take jurors from the Timothy McVeigh he knew immediately after Waco, who at that time had unleashed a torrent of anti-government venom, to the one poised and ready to send a message to that same government in Oklahoma City.

Fortier told jurors how McVeigh, in his living room in October 1994, had provided him with detailed plans to blow up the Murrah Building. By then, according to Fortier, McVeigh had already chosen the date for his attack to mark the second anniversary of the Waco assault. One of the most memorable moments of the trial came when Joseph Hartzler asked Fortier, "Did you have any discussion [with Tim McVeigh] about the deaths that such a bomb would cause?" Fortier replied, "I asked him about that... I said, 'What about all the people?' And he explained to me, using the terms from the movie "Star Wars" -- he explained to me that he considered all those people to be as if they were the storm troopers in the movie "Star Wars." They may be individually innocent; but because they are part of the -- the evil empire, they were -- they were guilty by association." Fortier also revealed his own reaction, when he first heard the news from Oklahoma City: "Oh my God, he did it."

The most painful testimony for McVeigh probably came from his own sister, Jennifer McVeigh. Her obvious reluctance to offer testimony that hurt her brother made what she did say all the more damaging. Jennifer outlined for jurors her brother's evolution from a government critic to a militant poised to take violent action against what he saw as a lawless government. She revealed that he told her of his experience with explosives, as well as the ominous words that ended one of his last letters to her: "Won't be back forever."

The defense presented 25 witnesses over just a one-week period. The most effective witness for the defense might have been Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, who provided a damning critique of the FBI's sloppy investigation of the bombing site and its handling of other key evidence Unfortunately for McVeigh, while Whitehurst could show that FBI techniques made contamination of evidence possible, he could not point to any evidence (such as trace evidence of explosives on the shirt McVeigh wore on April 19) that he knew to be contaminated.

The task of the defense team was all but impossible. They could not come up with a single alibi witness. They faced the reality that McVeigh had told dozens of people of his hatred of the government, and had told a friend that he planned to take violent action on April 19. Rental agreements and a drawing of downtown Oklahoma City linked him to the blast. He carried earplugs in his car driving north from Oklahoma City forty minutes after the explosion. How could it all be explained away?

In his closing argument, Jones pointed the jury to what the prosecution didn't have, such as an eyewitness that placed him near the Murrah Building around 9:00 a.m. on April 19, or the lack of McVeigh's fingerprints on the ignition key for the Ryder rental truck recovered in the bombing investigation. The Fortiers' lacked credibility, Jones said, they were just out to save their own skins. For a sympathetic defendant charged in a less heinous crime, poking holes in a prosecution case can sometimes be enough. Not in this case, however.

After over twenty-three hours of deliberation, the jury returned its verdict: guilty on all eleven counts. McVeigh sat expressionless at the defense table as the verdict was read.

The same jury listened to evidence in the penalty phase of the trial, with McVeigh's life hanging in the balance. Much of the testimony did not make for easy listening. Stories of heartbreak and loss, told by victims and rescue workers and medical personnel. Doctors told of sawing off legs of people trapped under the rubble. Wifes told of husbands who would never see their children graduate or get marries. Firefighters described recurring nightmares they had experienced since the tragedy. Police officers described finding dead babies in what was once the second-floor daycare center at the Murrah Building. In the face of this powerful testimony, testimonials from McVeigh's Army buddies and the argument of Stephen Jones that his client was not motivated by hatred of the victims paled in comparison.

The last two witnesses for the defense probably were its strongest, Timothy's divorced parents, Bill and Mickey McVeigh. Mickey cried as she read a statement she had composed the previous night. She told jurors that Tim was "a child any mother could be proud of; I still to this day cannot believe he would have caused this devastation." Bill McVeigh introduced a fifteen-minute videotape showing his young son meeting Santa Claus, playing with his toy train, and appearing to be a normal, All-American boy. "I love Tim," Bill McVeigh said simply.

For two days, the jury discussed McVeigh's fate. On Friday, June 13, 1997, the jury's decision was announced: death. Two months later, McVeigh returned to Judge Matsch's courtroom to hear the formal pronouncement of his sentence. Asked by the judge if he had anything to say, McVeigh quoted from a 1928 dissenting opinion by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: "'Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.' That's all I have." After Matsch pronounced the sentence of death, McVeigh was escorted from the courtroom by federal marshals, to be readied for transport to Florence, Colorado, the site of a federal prison known as "Supermax."

The Trials of Terry Nichols and Epilogue

Six months after McVeigh received his sentence, co-conspirator Terry Nichols escaped a death verdict in his trial before Judge Matsch. Although found guilty of conspiracy to bomb a federal building and eight counts of involuntary manslaughter, the jury acquitted Nichols on charges of using a weapon of mass destruction and first-degree murder. The jury apparently agreed with the argument of defense attorney Michael Tigar that Nichols had decided to drop out of the conspiracy some time before the actual bombing.

The fact that Nichols spent April 19, 1995 at home with his family in Kansas probably figured large in the jury's decision. The jury might also have been swayed by Nichols's show of remorse--he cried at several points during the testimony--, which stood in stark contrast to McVeigh's courtroom demeanor. (In May 2004, Nichols found his life spared a second time, when a jury deadlocked on his sentence after he had been found guilty in state court in Oklahoma on 160 charges of first-degree murder.)

In a sixteen-page letter written to Judge Matsch prior to the imposition of sentence, Nichols wrote, "If I did anything to contribute to the cause of the Oklahoma City bombing I am sorry, I'm truly sorry." He implied in his letter that he never believed McVeigh would actually go through with his bombing plan.

On June 4, 1998, Nichols listened as Judge Matsch pronounced his sentence: life in prison without parole. Authorities delivered Nichols to the same Colorado prison that housed McVeigh and other celebrity inmates including Unabomber Theodore Kacyznski and the mastermind of the first attack in 1993 on New York's World Trade Center, Ramzi Yousef. (In a letter to the authors of American Terrorist, Kacyznski said he "liked" McVeigh, who he described as "an adventurer by nature" who, at the same time, was "very intelligent" and expressed ideas that "seemed rational and sensible.")

Later in 1998, Michael Fortier joined McVeigh and Nichols at the Supermax. Fortier plead guilty to lying to federal officials and failing to warn authorities of McVeigh's planned bombing. He received a twelve-year sentence. (Fortier was released from prison in January 2006, after serving ten years and six months of his sentence.)

McVeigh's appeals, as expected, met no success. In September 1999, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Six months later, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. Authorities moved McVeigh to the only federal death row (there had been no federal executions since 1963) at a penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana in July 1999.

The American public got its first chance to hear directly from McVeigh in March 2000, when prison officials allowed Ed Bradley of the CBS show "Sixty Minutes" to interview him. McVeigh set only one condition for the interview: that Bradley not ask him whether he bombed the Murrah Building. He still had last-ditch appeals to think about. In the over thirty-minute interview, McVeigh offered his thoughts about politics, about his service in the Gulf War, and about what he perceived to be his unfair trial. Still, however, he showed no remorse over what happened in Oklahoma City. He blamed the U. S. government for teaching, through its aggressive foreign policy and application of the death penalty, the lesson that "violence is an acceptable option."

In January 2001, McVeigh decided to drop all his appeals and expedite his own execution. Judge Matsch set May 16 as the day he would receive a lethal injection. However, just six days before the scheduled execution, the Justice Department revealed that it found over 4,000 pages of evidence that should have been turned over to McVeigh's defense attorneys before trial, but wasn't.

Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that McVeigh's execution would be postponed for one month to allow the defense to inspect the newly released documents. Angered by what he saw as another example of the government's unfairness, McVeigh at first decided to renew his appeals, but after his first appeal was rejected on June 7, McVeigh announced that he was ready to die.

On the evening of June 10, McVeigh had his last meal (two pints of chocolate chip ice cream). The next morning, he woke early to take a shower. At 7 a.m., dressed in a shirt, khaki pants and slip-on shoes, McVeigh was led to the execution chamber. A "restraint team" strapped him to a padded gurney. The curtains over glass panels separating the chamber from a viewing area parted to allow 30 people to directly watch McVeigh's final moments, while another 300 victims and relatives gathered in Oklahoma City to watch the event on closed-circuit television.

McVeigh made no final statement, but instead left a handwritten copy of the poem "Invictus," with its concluding lines, "I am the master of my fate / I am the captain of my soul." Warden Harley Lappin read an official statement and then said, "We are ready." As the drugs entered his veins, McVeigh lifted his head and made eye contact with witnesses in the viewing room. He was pronounced dead at 7:14 a.m.

Three months after his execution, on September 11, 2001, McVeigh lost his claim to having masterminded the worst terrorist attack in United States history when hijacked airplanes slammed into the two towers of the World Trade Center.

Citations:

U.S. v. McVeigh, 918 F.Supp. 1452 (W.D.Okl. 1996)(Media request to unseal documents).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 918 F.Supp. 1467 (W.D.Okl. 1996) (Change of Venue).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 923 F.Supp. 1310 (D.Colo. 1996) (Discovery).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 931 F.Supp. 753 (D.Colo. 1996) (Motion to Stop Trial Audiotape).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 931 F.Supp. 756 (D.Colo. 1996) (Gag Order).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 940 F.Supp. 1541 (D.Colo. 1996) (Motion to Suppress).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 940 F.Supp. 1571 (D.Colo. 1996) (Motions to Dismiss).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 944 F.Supp. 1478 (D.Colo. 1996) (Motion to Dismiss DP/Disqualify AG).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 169 F.R.D. 362 (D.Colo. 1996) (Motion for Separate Trials).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 954 F.Supp. 1441 (D.Colo. 1997) (Discovery).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 954 F.Supp. 1454 (D.Colo. 1997) (Discovery).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 955 F.Supp. 1278 (D.Colo. 1997) (Motion to Exclude Lab Testing).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 955 F.Supp. 1281 (D.Colo. 1997) (Motion for Change of Venue/Continuance).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 958 F.Supp. 512 (D.Colo. 1997) (Separation of Victim/Witnesses).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 964 F.Supp. 313 (D.Colo. 1997) (Gag Order).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 118 F.Supp.2d 1137 (D.Colo. 2000) (Motion for New Trial).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 1998)(Direct Appeal), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 1148 (1999).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 2001 WL 611163 (D.Colo. 2001) (Stay of Execution).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 106 F.3d 325 10th Cir. 1997) (Separation of Victim/Witnesses).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806 (10th Cir. 1997) (Motion to Unseal), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1110 (1998).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 157 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1998) (Removing Gag Order).
U.S. v. McVeigh, 9 Fed.Appx. 980 (10th Cir. 2001) (Stay of Execution - Documents).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Tenth Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado

Before EBEL,KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant Timothy J. McVeigh ("McVeigh") was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death on eleven counts stemming from the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building ("Murrah Building") in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, that resulted in the deaths of 168 people. McVeigh appeals his conviction and sentence on the grounds that (A) pre-trial publicity unfairly prejudiced him, (B) juror misconduct precluded his right to a fair trial, (C) the district court erred by excluding evidence that someone else may have been guilty, (D) the district court improperly instructed the jury on the charged offenses, (E) the district court erred by admitting victim impact testimony during the guilt phase of trial, (F) the district court did not allow him to conduct adequate voir dire to discover juror bias as to sentencing, (G) the district court erred by excluding mitigating evidence during the penalty phase that someone else may have been involved in the bombing, (H) the district court erred by excluding mitigating evidence during the penalty phase showing the reasonableness of McVeigh's beliefs with regard to events at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, and (I) the victim impact testimony admitted during the penalty phase produced a sentence based on emotion rather than reason. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

At 9:02 in the morning of April 19, 1995, a massive explosion tore apart the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, killing a total of 168 people and injuring hundreds more. On August 10, 1995, a federal grand jury returned an eleven-count indictment against McVeigh and Terry Lynn Nichols ("Nichols") charging: one count of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) & (b); one count of use of a weapon of mass destruction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) & (b); one count of destruction by explosives in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f) and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) & (b); and eight counts of first-degree murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 & 1114 and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) & (b). On October 20, 1995, the government filed a Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty. On December 1, 1995, this court granted a Petition for Writ of Mandamus by Nichols to recuse Judge Wayne Alley of the Western District of Oklahoma. In a December 4, 1995, Order, the Chief Judge of this court designated Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch of the District of Colorado to preside over future proceedings.

On February 19, 1996, the district court granted McVeigh's and Nichols' Motion for Change of Venue and transferred the case to Denver, Colorado. On October 25, 1996, the district court granted a Motion for Severance by McVeigh and Nichols and ordered that McVeigh's trial would proceed first. McVeigh's trial began with voir dire of prospective jurors on March 31, 1997. A jury of twelve with six alternates was sworn in by the district court on April 24, 1997, and opening statements commenced that same day. The government began presenting evidence the following day.

At the guilt phase of trial, which encompassed twenty-three days of testimony, the government proved the following set of facts.(1) The destruction of the Murrah Building killed 163 people in the building and five people outside. Fifteen children in the Murrah Building day care center, visible from the front of the building, and four children visiting the building were included among the victims. Eight federal law enforcement officials also lost their lives. The explosion, felt and heard six miles away, tore a gaping hole into the front of the Murrah Building and covered the streets with glass, debris, rocks, and chunks of concrete. Emergency workers who reported to the scene made heroic efforts to rescue people still trapped in the building.

The Murrah Building was destroyed by a 3,000-6,000 pound bomb comprised of an ammonium nitrate-based explosive carried inside a rented Ryder truck. In the fall of 1994, McVeigh and Nichols sought, bought, and stole all the materials needed to construct the bomb. First, on September 30, 1994, and October 18, 1994, McVeigh purchased a total of 4,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate from the McPherson branch of the Mid-Kansas Cooperative using the alias "Mike Havens." Second, in October of 1994, McVeigh and Nichols stole seven cases of Tovex explosives and a box of Primadet nonelectric blasting caps from the Martin Marietta rock quarry near Marion, Kansas. Third, on October 21, 1994, McVeigh purchased three drums of nitromethane at a race track outside of Dallas, Texas. Prior to the nitromethane purchase, McVeigh had sought bomb ingredients, including nitromethane, both in person and through the use of a prepaid telephone calling card under the name "Daryl Bridges." Using various aliases, McVeigh and Nichols rented a number of storage lockers in Kansas where they stored the bomb components. In order to fund their conspiracy, McVeigh and Nichols robbed a gun dealer in Arkansas in November of 1994.

In a letter to Michael and Lori Fortier written around September of 1994, McVeigh disclosed that he and Terry Nichols had decided to take some type of positive offensive action against the federal government in response to the government's siege of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas in 1993. On a subsequent visit to their home, McVeigh told the Fortiers that he planned to blow up a federal building. McVeigh later informed the Fortiers that he wanted to cause a general uprising in America and that the bombing would occur on the anniversary of the end of the Waco siege. McVeigh rationalized the inevitable loss of life by concluding that anyone who worked in the federal building was guilty by association with those responsible for Waco.

McVeigh stated that he had figured out how to make a truck into a bomb using fifty-five-gallon drums filled with ammonium nitrate combined with explosives stolen from the quarry. McVeigh demonstrated the shaped charge he intended to use for the bomb by arranging soup cans on the floor in the same triangle shape in which he was going to place fifty-five-gallon barrels filled with ammonium nitrate combined with nitromethane in the truck. McVeigh also diagramed the truck, barrels, and fusing system on a piece of paper, and stated that he intended to use a Ryder truck. McVeigh told the Fortiers that he chose the Murrah Building as the target because he believed that (1) the orders for the attack at Waco emanated from the building, (2) the building housed people involved in the Waco raid, and (3) the building's U-shape and glass front made it an easy target. On a later trip through Oklahoma City, McVeigh showed Michael Fortier the Murrah Building, asking Fortier whether he thought a twenty-foot rental truck would fit in front of the building.

Also, towards the end of 1994, McVeigh typed a number of letters discussing the justified use of violence against federal agents as retaliation for the events in Waco. McVeigh told his sister and one of his friends that he had moved from the propaganda stage to the action stage in his dispute with the federal government. McVeigh then warned his sister that "something big" was going to happen in April, and asked her to extend her April 1995 Florida vacation. He also instructed her not to write to him any more lest she incriminate herself. The manner in which the bombing was carried out closely tracked several books bought by McVeigh, which he often encouraged his friends to read, describing how to make a powerful bomb mixing ammonium nitrate with nitromethane and romanticizing self-declared patriots who blow up federal buildings. McVeigh was familiar with explosives and had detonated a pipe bomb prior to the attack on the Murrah Building.

From April 14 to 18, 1995, McVeigh stayed at the Dreamland Motel located in Junction City, Kansas. On April 14, 1995, McVeigh purchased a 1977 yellow Mercury Marquis from Junction City Firestone in Junction City, Kansas. While waiting to take possession of the car from the dealer, McVeigh made a phone call using the Bridges calling card to Elliott's Body Shop ("Elliott's") in Junction City, Kansas, seeking a twenty-foot Ryder truck for a one-way rental to Omaha. McVeigh also called Nichols.

During the search of the blast site, the FBI located the rear axle of the Ryder truck used to carry the bomb. The vehicle identification number from the axle matched that of the Ryder truck rented to McVeigh by Elliott's on April 15, 1995, and picked up by McVeigh two days prior to the blast. McVeigh rented the truck under the name "Robert Kling" using a phony South Dakota drivers license that Lori Fortier had helped McVeigh create.

McVeigh drove to Oklahoma City in the rented Ryder truck, which he had made into a bomb, parking the vehicle in front of the Murrah Building and running to the yellow Mercury that he and Nichols had stashed as a getaway car in a nearby alley a couple of days before the bombing. A Ford key fitting the Ryder truck was found in an alley near where McVeigh had told Michael Fortier that the getaway car would be parked. McVeigh hand-printed a sign inside the yellow Mercury, "Not Abandoned; Please do not tow; will move by April 23 (Needs Battery & Cable)." McVeigh deliberately parked the car so that a building would stand between the car and the blast, shielding McVeigh from the explosion. The bomb then exploded.

Just 77 minutes after the blast, Oklahoma State Trooper Charles Hanger ("Hanger") stopped the yellow Mercury driven by McVeigh because the car had no license tags. The stop occurred between mile markers 202 and 203 on Interstate 35, just before the exit for Billings, Oklahoma, precisely 77.9 miles north of the Murrah Building. Before he was stopped by Hanger, McVeigh was headed northbound away from Oklahoma City towards Kansas. A person driving the posted speed limit would have reached the point of the stop 75 minutes after leaving the Murrah Building. If McVeigh had left the Murrah Building right after the bombing, he would have arrived at the Billings exit around 10:17 a.m., the approximate time of the stop.

Hanger arrested McVeigh upon discovering that he was carrying a concealed, loaded gun. Hanger transported McVeigh to Noble County Jail in Perry, Oklahoma, where McVeigh was booked and incarcerated for unlawfully carrying a weapon and transporting a loaded firearm. Noble County authorities took custody of McVeigh's clothing and property, including earplugs, and issued him prison garb. Two days later, on April 21, 1995, the federal government filed a Complaint against McVeigh for unlawful destruction by explosives. Oklahoma then transferred McVeigh to federal custody on the federal bombing charges. An FBI test performed later found that McVeigh's clothing and the earplugs contained explosives residue, including PETN, EGDN, and nitroglycerine chemicals associated with the materials used in the construction of the bomb.

A subsequent inventory search of the yellow Mercury uncovered a sealed envelope containing documents arguing that the federal government had commenced open warfare on the liberty of the American people and justifying the killing of government officials in the defense of liberty. Finally, three days after the arrest, Hanger found a Paulsen's Military Supply business card on the floor of his cruiser bearing McVeigh's fingerprints. McVeigh had written on the back of the card, "TNT @ $5/stick Need more" and "Call After 01, May, See if I can get some more."

Closing arguments were made on May 29, 1997, and the district court charged the jury on May 30, 1997. On June 2, 1997, after four days of deliberations, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all eleven counts charged in the Indictment. The penalty phase of trial commenced on June 4, 1997, and concluded with summations and jury instructions on June 12, 1997. The jury deliberated for two days before returning special findings recommending that McVeigh be sentenced to death. After denying McVeigh's motion for a new trial, the district court accepted the jury recommendation on August 14, 1997, sentencing McVeigh to death on all eleven counts. McVeigh filed a timely notice of appeal that same day. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3742(a) & 3595, and Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).

DISCUSSION

A. PRETRIAL PUBLICITY

McVeigh claims that he was denied due process of law under the Fifth Amendment and his right to trial by an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment because the jury pool was flooded with negative pretrial publicity, especially media reports that he had confessed to his lawyers that he had committed the Oklahoma City bombing. McVeigh argues that the pretrial publicity amounted to both presumed and actual prejudice.

1. Standard of Review

The two different types of prejudice claimed by McVeigh are subject to different standards of review. Presumed prejudice requires this court to evaluate the complained-of publicity, as well as the circumstances surrounding that publicity, and to determine whether a reasonable juror exposed to such publicity could remain impartial, or whether the publicity was of such a nature as to render impartiality impossible. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 351-52 (1966); United States v. Abello-Silva, 948 F.2d 1168, 1176-77 (10th Cir. 1991). The court of appeals undertakes this review of the overall circumstances of the publicity de novo. See Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 362.

A claim of actual prejudice is subjected to a more deferential standard of review. See Stafford v. Saffle, 34 F.3d 1557, 1567 (10th Cir. 1994); Abello- Silva, 948 F.2d at 1177. The determination of whether the seated jury could remain impartial in the face of negative pretrial publicity, and the measures that may be taken to ensure such impartiality, lay squarely within the domain of the trial court. See Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 427 (1991); Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1039 (1984); Stafford, 34 F.3d at 1567. Therefore, we review the trial court's rulings in this regard for abuse of discretion. See Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 427; Abello-Silva, 948 F.2d at 1177.

2. Background

As with the bombing itself, news of McVeigh's arrest received a great deal of attention in the media, and was ubiquitously reported on television, radio, and in print. The image of McVeigh being led, wearing orange jail clothing, through an angry crowd into a van by authorities appeared in print and electronic media nationwide. See United States v. McVeigh, 918 F. Supp. 1467, 1471 (W.D. Okla. 1996). In its ruling granting McVeigh's motion for change of venue the district court noted that it had considered the alternative of moving the trial to Tulsa, Oklahoma, but because of the intensity of the emotional impact of the bombing, and its attendant publicity, on all Oklahomans, it would be impossible for McVeigh to receive a fair jury trial anywhere in the State of Oklahoma. See id. at 1470-74. The district court decided to move the trial to Denver, a large metropolitan area where a "large jury pool is available." See id. at 1474. In this ruling the district court implicitly found that the Denver jury pool was not as intensely affected by the bombing or the subsequent publicity as was the Oklahoma jury pool.

On February 14, 1997, the district court sent out jury summons to hundreds of people living in the Denver area, notifying them that they had been randomly selected as potential jurors for the McVeigh trial. The notification admonished its recipients to avoid publicity concerning the case that might interfere with their ability to remain impartial. The notification advised the potential jurors that "[t]here have been many things written and said about the explosion in Oklahoma City. Much of it may be speculation, rumor and incorrect information." The notification further stressed the need for all potential jurors to be impartial and willing to base their decision solely on the law and the evidence. The notification concluded with a short, preliminary questionnaire which included a question asking if "there is any . . . reason that would prevent you from serving on this jury."

Two weeks later, on February 28, the Dallas Morning News published an article on its Internet home page claiming that it was in possession of internal, confidential defense documents that revealed McVeigh had confessed to his own lawyers that he had indeed bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. See Pete Slover, McVeigh saw 'body count' as best way to make statement in Oklahoma City bombing, defense reports state, (visited Feb. 28, 1997) <http://www.dallasnews.com/texas-southwest/tsw72-NF.htm>. This story was picked up and reported by both the national and Denver news media. According to the reports, McVeigh had told his lawyers that he deliberately set off the bomb during the daytime in order to obtain a higher "body count"; that he had committed the bombing out of a desire to make a point to the federal government, presumably that the government mishandled the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas; and that he was assisted in the bombing by Terry Nichols, with whom McVeigh had participated in a number of robberies in order to obtain money and supplies needed to create the bomb. See id.

On March 4, a chambers conference was held at which the court and parties discussed this development and whether the trial date, originally set for March 31, should be delayed. At this conference, McVeigh's counsel told the court that McVeigh did not want a continuance, but rather desired to go forward with voir dire and seating a jury.(2)

On March 11, Playboy Magazine published on its Internet web site an article that claimed to contain information from documents "lawfully obtained" from McVeigh's counsel. See Ben Fenwick, The Road to Oklahoma City (visited March 11, 1997) <http://www.Playboy.com/mcveigh/index.html>. This article differed from the Dallas Morning News article mainly in the scope of detail with which it describes McVeigh's alleged activities during the time leading up to the bombing and the alleged motivation for the crime. See id. As with the Dallas Morning News story, information contained within the Playboy article was widely disseminated in the national media, as well as in the Denver media. Soon after this, McVeigh filed a motion to dismiss the indictment or, in the alternative, to postpone the trial for a minimum of one year, due to the "presumed effects of recent publication . . . of stories" that McVeigh had made incriminating statements. United States v. McVeigh, 955 F. Supp. 1281, 1281 (D. Colo. 1997). The district court dismissed this motion, holding that "fair-minded persons" would not be "so influenced by anything contained in this recent publicity" that they could not remain impartial. Id. at 1283.

On March 19, 352 prospective jurors were summoned to the Jefferson County Fairgrounds to fill out an extended questionnaire. Before filling out the questionnaire the court commented that news reports of events are often inaccurate, that most people remain skeptical about such reports, and admonished the potential jurors to set aside all publicity surrounding the case as well as any "impressions or opinions" that they may have formed based upon media reports. The court also observed that the constitutional right to a fair trial "depends on the willingness of citizens to decide the case based entirely on the evidence that they see and hear at the trial . . . . That requires a commitment to set aside any preconceived impressions or opinions." After the potential jurors had completed the questionnaires, the court informed them that from that moment on they were required to follow "the same instructions that will be given to the jury selected in this case." The court ordered the prospective jurors "beginning right now to avoid any news reports of any kind or any communication or publication of any kind that concerns any issues related to the charges in this case."

McVeigh filed an interlocutory writ of prohibition with this court seeking an order "directing the district court to continue the trial for an indefinite period on grounds of prejudicial pretrial publicity." In re McVeigh, No. 97-1117, at 1 (10th Cir. Mar. 28, 1997) (unpublished order). We denied his petition, holding that because voir dire had not yet taken place any ruling on pretrial publicity was premature, given the trial court's "broad discretion in gauging the effects of allegedly prejudicial publicity and in taking responsive measures to ensure a fair trial." Id. at 3.

Voir dire commenced on March 31. Four of the seated jurors indicated either on the questionnaire or during voir dire that they had seen headlines or casually overheard reports of McVeigh's alleged confession, but in each case they indicated that their exposure was only superficial and that they were skeptical of the accuracy of the report. None of the rest of the seated jurors indicated that they had even heard about the alleged confession. Each of the seated jurors affirmed that he or she could remain impartial and decide the case based only on the facts presented in court.

3. Analysis

a. Presumed Prejudice

As this court has held, the claim of presumed prejudice is "rarely invoked and only in extreme situations." Abello-Silva, 948 F.2d at 1177; see also Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 551-54 (1976). Moreover, "[t]he defendant bears the burden of establishing that prejudice should be presumed." Stafford, 34 F.3d at 1566.

In order for the reviewing court to reach a presumption that inflammatory pretrial publicity so permeated the community as to render impossible the seating of an impartial jury, the court must find that the publicity in essence displaced the judicial process, thereby denying the defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial. See Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 342-45, 352-57 (noting that "bedlam reigned at the courthouse during the trial" due to media's intrusive and pervasive presence in the courtroom, inflammatory news reports, often broadcast live from the courtroom, and media hounding of jurors and the defendant); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 577-80 (1965) (Warren, C.J., concurring) (media invasion of courtroom pierced the constitutional shield normally provided to the defendant by destroying "the dignity and integrity of the trial process"); Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 725-27 (1963) (repeated broadcast in defendant's small community of defendant's video taped "confession" to local authorities resulted in a "kangaroo court" that derailed due process and quashed any hope of fair trial in that locale); see also Stafford, 34 F.3d at 1566 (evaluating, on the issue of presumed prejudice, whether there was evidence of a "circus atmosphere or lynch mob mentality"); Abello-Silva, 948 F.2d at 1177 ("In cases like Estes, Rideau, and Sheppard, prejudice was presumed because the news media influence pervaded the proceedings, igniting extensive prejudice in the community.") (quotation omitted). In such cases, we simply cannot rely on "'jurors' claims that they can be impartial'" and declare the publicity to be prejudicial as a matter of law. Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 429 (quoting Patton, 467 U.S. at 1031).

However, the bar facing the defendant wishing to prove presumed prejudice from pretrial publicity is extremely high. See Stafford, 34 F.3d at 1566 ("[Defendant] must establish that 'an irrepressibly hostile attitude pervaded the community.' This is a difficult standard, even in cases in which there has been extensive media coverage . . . .") (quoting Abello-Silva, 948 F.2d at 1176); see also Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d 1487, 1537 (11th Cir. 1985) ("[T]he presumptive prejudice standard recognized in Rideau is only rarely applicable, and is reserved for an extreme situation. In short, the burden placed upon the petitioner to show that pretrial publicity deprived him of his right to a fair trial before an impartial jury is an extremely heavy one.") (quotations and citations omitted); United States v. Cooper, 464 F.2d 648, 655 (10th Cir. 1972) ("'[T]he mere fact of unfavorable publicity does not of itself raise a presumption of prejudice . . . . The prejudice must have manifested itself so as to corrupt due process.'") (quoting Dennis v. United States, 302 F.2d 5, 8 (10th Cir. 1962)). Indeed, despite the proliferation of the news media and its technology, the Supreme Court has not found a single case of presumed prejudice in this country since the watershed case of Sheppard.

McVeigh's claim of presumed prejudice fails to clear this high hurdle. The circumstances that led the Court to presume prejudice in Sheppard, Estes, and Rideau simply do not exist in this case. First, McVeigh's attempt to show presumed prejudice is substantially weakened by the fact that, unlike the defendants in Sheppard and Rideau, he did receive a change in venue, removing his trial from the eye of the emotional storm in Oklahoma to the calmer metropolitan climate of Denver. Second, mere television images of the defendant in prison garb being led through an angry crowd do not come close to the type of inflammatory publicity required to reach the disruptive force seen in Sheppard, Estes, and Rideau. For this reason, we focus, as does McVeigh in his briefs before this court, mainly on the prejudicial effect on the Denver jury pool of the publication of reports that McVeigh confessed the crime to his attorneys.(3)

The disclosure and publication of information obtained from documents purporting to contain confidential communications between an individual and his attorneys indicates a lack of self-restraint and ethical compass on the part of those individuals responsible for doing so. However, the fact that McVeigh's attorneys denied the validity of the confessions gave rise to publicly aired doubts of the accuracy of the reports, a fact that somewhat lessened the reports' prejudicial impact on the public mind. Indeed, the Dallas Morning News Internet article includes in its headline the following words: "Suspect's attorney disputes reliability of documents." Unlike Rideau, here there was no video taped broadcast of an actual confession. Nor was there a reproduction of a printed confession signed by McVeigh. In short, the publicity here did not contain an actual confession but only the second-hand or perhaps even third-hand or more unattributed hearsay report of a confession. Such an indirect report of a confession will have far less impact than the situation where the actual confession is broadcast. Cf. Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 418, 430-31 (press reports of "indications that [defendant] had confessed" did not preclude seating of an unbiased jury); Patton, 467 U.S. at 1029, 1040 (same). The hearsay nature of the reports of McVeigh's confession, the publicized denial of the accuracy of those reports, the strong admonitions given by the court both before and after the publicity about the purported confession, the fact that a large number of the venirepersons summoned were not even aware of the reports of McVeigh's alleged confession, and the change of venue, all persuade us that the pretrial publicity of which McVeigh complains in this case did not "manifest[ ] itself so as to corrupt due process." Cooper, 464 F.2d at 655. Thus, it does not warrant a presumption of prejudice.(4)

b. Actual Prejudice

In reviewing for actual prejudice, we examine the circumstances of the publicity and the voir dire, and merely determine "whether the judge had a reasonable basis for concluding that the jurors selected could be impartial." Abello-Silva, 948 F.2d at 1177-78 (quotation omitted). Moreover:

Impartiality does not mean jurors are totally ignorant of the case.

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how an intelligent venireman could be completely uninformed of significant events in his community. "It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court."

Id. (quoting Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 (1961)). What we must decide here is whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that the seated jury could disregard the adverse pretrial publicity and render an impartial verdict.(5)

We do not believe that the district court abused its discretion. Here, the district court went to great lengths to admonish all potential jurors to ignore the publicity surrounding the issues of the case. In fact, McVeigh does not argue that the district court failed to take strong measures to ensure juror impartiality, but rather takes the position that the district court's admonitions had the unintended effect of increasing the jury pool's interest in publicity about the case and informed potential jurors of the answers that would be expected of them if they hoped to get on the jury. The assertion that the court's admonitions had the unintended effect of increasing the venirepersons' interest in publicity may be tested by asking if an abnormally large number of venirepersons indicated having knowledge of the alleged confession. To the contrary, a significant number of venirepersons indicated that they had not heard the news of McVeigh's alleged confession, suggesting that the court's earlier admonitions to avoid publicity associated with the case had the desired effect.(6) McVeigh's claim that the court's admonitions served to instruct already prejudiced would-be jurors how to mask that prejudice in order to get onto the jury calls for pure speculation. We could equally speculate that the court's admonitions that it is normal for people to be affected by publicity, and that a "good juror" is expected to put any conclusions based upon that publicity aside might encourage those who had formed an opinion based upon pretrial publicity to disclose that fact without fear of shame and to encourage them to agree to set those opinions aside. McVeigh's claim fails.

Moreover, each of the seated jurors in this case was asked if he or she could put aside media reports and decide the case only on evidence presented in court. Each responded that he or she could. Voir dire was by no means a hurried affair; each seated juror's voir dire accounted for an average of forty-eight transcript pages, or a period of an hour or so. The members of the jury pool were subjected to two screening questionnaires, individual questioning by the court, and questioning by counsel for both the government and McVeigh. Questioning by the court and the parties goes a long way towards ensuring that any prejudice, no matter how well hidden, will be revealed.

Finally, each of the four seated jurors who mentioned having heard something about McVeigh confessing also unequivocally stated that he or she nonetheless could keep an open mind about the case and would adjudicate it on its merits. Granted, the fact that potential jurors declare that they can remain impartial in the face of negative pretrial publicity is not always dispositive of the question. See Irvin, 366 U.S. at 727-28.(7) However, we give due deference to jurors' declarations of impartiality and the trial court's credibility determination that those declarations are sincere. See Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 420-21, 431-32; Patton, 467 U.S. at 1036-40; Stafford, 34 F.3d at 1567-68; Abello-Silva, 948 F.2d at 1177-78; Cummings v. Dugger, 862 F.2d 1504, 1510 (11th Cir. 1989). Unlike an appellate court, the trial court has the opportunity to make a first-hand evaluation of a juror's demeanor and responsiveness to voir dire questions in deciding impartiality issues. See Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188-89 (1981) (plurality opinion).

Because the district court repeatedly stressed the importance of avoiding the pretrial publicity concerning the case, because each of the seated jurors was individually questioned about his or her ability to set aside the effects that any exposure to pretrial publicity may have had, because each juror declared that he or she could remain impartial and decide the case on its merits, and because the district court was satisfied that each juror seated was sincere in that declaration, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that this jury could and would decide the case in a fair and impartial manner.

B. JUROR MISCONDUCT

McVeigh contends that one of the jurors committed misconduct by deciding his guilt before the case was submitted to the jury. In analyzing this issue, we must decide two questions: first, whether the district court erred in not holding a hearing on this allegation of juror misconduct, and second, whether the district court erred in not dismissing the juror for the alleged misconduct.

1. Standard of Review

The government has suggested that we review for plain error the question whether the district court should have held a hearing on the allegations of juror misconduct because the defense did not specifically request a hearing but instead asked only that the juror be excused. However, during a conference with counsel the court made it plain that it would not hold a hearing. Under the circumstances, the defense was not obligated to ask for a hearing. Consequently, we review for abuse of discretion the court's decision on how to handle the allegation of juror misconduct. See United States v. Bornfield, 145 F.3d 1123, 1132 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Bradshaw, 787 F.2d 1385, 1390 (10th Cir. 1986).

We also review for abuse of discretion the question whether this juror should have been excused from service. See Anderson v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 543 F.2d 732, 734 (10th Cir. 1976). However, the decision whether to excuse a juror rests on whether the juror can remain impartial, a matter of fact uniquely within the observation of the trial court. See United States v. Barone, 114 F.3d 1284, 1307 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 614 (1997).

2. Background

During the morning of Monday, May 12, 1997, an alternate juror reported to the Clerk of the district court the substance of a discussion that had taken place in the jury room the previous Friday, May 9. The jurors had been conversing about who might be the alternates, and one juror said, "I hope I'm not the hold-out juror." In response, another juror said, "It wouldn't be very hard. I think we all know what the verdict should be."(8)

At the noon recess, after receiving the Clerk's report of the conversation, the judge gave the following instructions to the jury:

Members of the jury, we're going to recess again as usual for the hour-and-a-half lunch period. And I want to reemphasize what I've been saying each time when we recess about the extreme importance here of each of you maintaining an open mind with respect to the case and all aspects of it.

I know that at times that's difficult to do, because you're together and we keep you in a relatively confined area. And naturally, you talk about a lot of things, sometimes lightheartedly, bantering about this and that. And I suppose sometimes it's tempting to talk about the case and where we are in the case, what progress we have or have not made, when it may be given to you for decision.

All of those things are off limits, and I want you to know that. I can't tell you where we are in the case. This isn't a computer program. This is a human event, a trial. We can't tell you how long particular witnesses will be. And you can't at this point and nobody else can fit the testimony of any one witness into the case as a whole. Remember that we are hearing witnesses called by the Government. Defense has an opportunity to call witnesses. Some witnesses may seem to you as we go along more important than others. Don't let that happen, even in your own thinking. You have got to, every time we break here, put it at rest.

The reason for these breaks in part, of course, is of course to take lunch but also to give you some time to relax. Don't use that time to talk about anything in connection with this case. Don't speculate about it. Don't talk about it. Keep open minds. If you don't, you're violating the oath that you've taken to decide this case based on all of the evidence presented to you.

So even in jest, say nothing about in case [sic] among yourselves.

At the end of the day's proceedings, the judge again cautioned the jury, saying:

Members of the jury, we're going to recess, as usual, this being 5:00; and again, during the time of this recess, of course, you must be very careful to avoid anything that may appear in radio, television, newspapers, magazines, whatever, concerning the trial, today's testimony, anything that relates to the trial, knowing, of course, the importance of your holding true to your oath to be able to decide this case based on what happens in this room and also hold true to your obligation to keep open minds until you've heard it all. You recall back as long ago as the time that we talked with you during jury selection of the importance of this, and we have to hold you to that and your honor in following that. You're on an honor system.

And, you know, the honor system is all that I can rely on so that I don't sequester you. So it's very important. And a part of the honor system is that if any of you violate that in any way, others of you will tell me about it.

After the jury had been dismissed for the day, the judge then held a conference with counsel and informed them of the juror's report. The defense moved that the juror who commented "I think we all know what the verdict should be" be stricken from the jury. The government said it was satisfied with the court's curative instructions. It suggested, however, that if the court felt further measures were necessary it should first "call in" the juror. The court decided not to hold a hearing on the allegation and effectively denied the defense's motion to strike the juror.

3. Analysis

a. Should the district court have held a hearing?

McVeigh first contends that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to hold a hearing on the alternate juror's allegations. Although this is a fairly close question, we conclude that the district court's refusal to hold a hearing was not an abuse of discretion.

As the case law makes evident, there are varying degrees of juror misconduct. The most serious cases of misconduct involve extraneous influences on the jury, such as jurors becoming privy to prejudicial information not introduced into evidence or having improper contacts with parties, witnesses, or third parties. See United States v. Resko, 3 F.3d 684, 690 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) (allowing juror to testify after verdict only on question whether extraneous information was brought to jury's attention); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1466 (10th Cir. 1995) (doubting that presumption of prejudice which applies to extraneous contacts would apply to communications among venirepersons). Generally, allegations of extraneous influences require the district court to hold a hearing. See Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229-30 (1954); United States v. Thompson, 908 F.2d 648, 651 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Hornung, 848 F.2d 1040, 1045 (10th Cir. 1988). However, even in cases involving such allegations, we have held that on rare occasions it is within the district court's discretion to refuse to hold a hearing when it can clearly be established that a hearing would not be useful or necessary. See United States v. Davis, 60 F.3d 1479, 1483-84 (10th Cir. 1995) (hearing unnecessary when district court already had sufficient facts to know the extent of the extraneous contact); United States v. Rosales, 680 F.2d 1304, 1306 (10th Cir. 1981) (no abuse of discretion to decline to hold a hearing when there was no evidence that any juror other than the one discharged heard the extraneous remarks).

Unlike cases concerning extraneous influences, this case involves an allegation of intrajury misconduct, specifically the allegation that a juror had reached a premature conclusion regarding McVeigh's guilt. Although premature discussions among jurors may prejudice the defendant, see Resko, 3 F.3d at 689-90, intrajury misconduct generally has been regarded as less serious than extraneous influences on the jury. See United States v. McClinton, 135 F.3d 1178, 1186 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 2308 (1998), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 30, 1998) (No. 98-5078); United States v. Williams-Davis, 90 F.3d 490, 505 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 986, 988 (1997); United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384, 1394 (3d Cir. 1994); Resko, 3 F.3d at 690; United States v. Tierney, 947 F.2d 854, 869 (8th Cir. 1991); United States v. Harris, 908 F.2d 728, 733 (11th Cir. 1990); United States v. Webster, 750 F.2d 307, 338-39 (5th Cir. 1984). Consequently, an allegation of intrajury misconduct may or may not warrant a hearing. See Bradshaw, 787 F.2d at 1389-90 (declining to adopt per se rule that a hearing was required and finding no abuse of discretion in declining to hold a hearing); see also United States v. Abrams, 137 F.3d 704, 708 (2d Cir.) (per curiam) (holding no abuse of discretion in dealing with alleged intrajury misconduct by means of a curative instruction rather than a hearing and noting the risk that a hearing might unduly emphasize the problem), petition for cert. filed, 66 U.S.L.W. 3791 (U.S. May 26, 1998) (No. 97-1979); United States v. Stafford, 136 F.3d 1109, 1112 (7th Cir.) (same), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 8, 1998) (No. 97-9408); Harris, 908 F.2d at 733-34 (deferring to trial judge's decision in one instance to hold only a limited hearing and in another not to hold a hearing due to ambiguity of juror remarks); United States v. Read, 658 F.2d 1225, 1241 (7th Cir. 1981) (strong cautionary instruction to jury that had seemingly made up its mind prior to conclusion of trial was proper exercise of discretion); United States v. Panebianco, 543 F.2d 447, 457 (2d Cir. 1976).

"Courts face a delicate and complex task whenever they undertake to investigate reports of juror misconduct or bias during the course of a trial." United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 618 (2d Cir. 1997). In determining whether the allegation is sufficiently serious to warrant a hearing, the district court must consider "the content of the allegations, including the seriousness and likelihood of the alleged bias, and the credibility of the source." United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d 1169, 1173 (10th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). Ultimately, the court must weigh the benefits of having a hearing, including the ability perhaps to ascertain more fully the extent and gravity of the possible prejudice, against the risks inherent in interrupting the trial and possibly placing undue emphasis on the challenged conduct. See Bertoli, 40 F.3d at 1395; Harris, 908 F.2d at 734; United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. 1978).

Here, the district court already knew much of the information that a hearing would have provided, including who made the statement, what was said, and the general circumstances surrounding the statement. Cf. Resko, 3 F.3d at 690-91 (holding that the district court abused its discretion in failing to hold a hearing where the presence or absence of juror prejudice could not be determined on the existing record). The only facts that the judge did not know here was what exactly the juror meant by the statement, who overheard the statement, and how it was interpreted by any juror who may have overheard it. These are admittedly important considerations. However, in United States v. Day, 830 F.2d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 1987), we held that a district court "armed only with the undisputed content of the conversation . . . had an adequate basis to find, as a matter of law, that no prejudice resulted" without having examined the juror who participated in the conversation.

Here, several factors probably influenced the district court in its decision not to hold a hearing, but rather to address the problem with strong curative instructions. Foremost, such a proceeding may have drawn undeserved attention to the remark. Further, the court, from its own observations, was under the impression that the juror who allegedly made the remark generally followed the court's instructions and typically nodded his head in agreement while instructions were given, so that the court's alternative remedy of giving strong curative instructions was reasonably calculated to correct the problem. We are less likely to find an abuse of discretion where a district court implements reasonably effective alternative measures even though it does not hold a hearing. See Abrams, 137 F.3d at 708-09; Read, 658 F.2d at 1241; Panebianco, 543 F.2d at 457. The district court's curative instructions reminded the jurors that they had the duty to report any juror misconduct. The record does not suggest that the court received any further reports of misconduct, so it would appear that the instructions were effective.

We hold that under these circumstances the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold a hearing on the allegation of juror misconduct. As a caveat to the courts of this circuit, though, we note that "[w]hen a party's suggestion that a jury is biased is not frivolous, the district court ordinarily should undertake an adequate inquiry into the questions of whether the bias actually existed and whether it was prejudicial." Bradshaw, 787 F.2d at 1390 (quotation omitted). Here, holding a hearing would have been preferable so that the record would be clear whether the juror even made the comment, and if so, what he meant by it and who heard it. However, we are limited to reviewing the district court's decision for abuse of discretion, rather than de novo, and thus we decline to find reversible error.

b. Should the juror have been excused?

Regardless of whether it held a hearing, the district court also had to decide whether the juror was so tainted as to deny the defendant his constitutional right to an impartial jury. See Davis, 60 F.3d at 1484.

The remark "I think we all know what the verdict should be" is on its face ambiguous. The district court interpreted the comment as a non-serious remark, but the statement may also reflect a premature conclusion regarding McVeigh's guilt. In any event, the very ambiguity of the remark is a reason to defer to the trial court's superior ability to evaluate the demeanor and conduct of the juror in gauging impartiality. See Harris, 908 F.2d at 734. On this record, we cannot find that the trial court was clearly erroneous in concluding that, upon receiving the curative instructions, the members of the jury remained impartial. See Wacker, 72 F.3d at 1467; Read, 658 F.2d at 1241. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in allowing the juror to remain seated.

C. EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED ALTERNATIVE PERPETRATORS

McVeigh challenges the district court's decision to exclude two lines of evidence that McVeigh argues would suggest that persons connected with a white-supremacist, anti-government organization in Stillwell, Oklahoma, known as "Elohim City," were involved in the conspiracy to destroy the Murrah Building. McVeigh contends that the district court abused its discretion(9) when it excluded as "not sufficiently relevant" both the proffered testimony from Carol Howe ("Howe"), an undercover government informant at Elohim City, and other proffered evidence that McVeigh argues would have shown the government suspended its independent investigation of Elohim City in the wake of McVeigh's arrest.

McVeigh argues that this ruling was based solely on the relevance standard of Rule 401. The government, however, argues that the court's ruling incorporates both the relevance standard of Rule 401 and the balancing required in Rule 403. The text of the court's ruling appears to favor the government's position, indicating that the court found some "relevance" under Rule 401, but not enough to be "sufficient" under Rule 403.

1. Standard of review

Generally, we review a district court's ruling on the relevance and potential prejudice of proffered evidence under the abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Call, 129 F.3d 1402, 1405 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 2064 (1998). Furthermore, this circuit has never found a per se abuse of discretion simply because a trial court failed to make explicit, on-the-record findings for a decision under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 other than when the disputed evidence is offered pursuant to one of the specialized character evidence rules.(10) See generally Navarro de Cosme v. Hospital Pavia, 922 F.2d 926, 931 (1st Cir. 1991) (explaining that "it is understood that in Rule 403 decisions explicit findings need not always be made") (quotation omitted); 22 Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice & Procedure § 5224, at 321 (1978) (noting that on-the-record findings are not required by Rule 403, but encouraged by commentators). See also Brown v. Southeastern Penn. Transp. Auth. (In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig.), 113 F.3d 444, 457 n.8 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that Rule 403 "normally require a district court to make explicit its reasoning," and that the rule imposes an "obligation" on trial courts "to perform this weighing process on the record," but excusing the lack of explicit findings in that case because of the procedural posture in which the court's ruling occurred).

Although the trial court should, of course, always make explicit findings to support its Rule 403 rulings, there may be occasions when the record is such that we can do our own de novo balancing of the Rule 403 factors without requiring a remand of that issue to the district court. See, e.g., Glass v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 34 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 1994) (holding that when a trial court fails to articulate its balancing of probativity and prejudice under Rule 403, an appellate court may, under appropriate circumstances, either "decide the trial court implicitly performed the required balance; or, if we decide the trial court did not, we undertake to perform the balance ourselves") (quotation omitted); Black v. Ryder/P.I.E. Nationwide, Inc., 15 F.3d 573, 587 (6th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Graham, 83 F.3d 1466, 1473 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 993 (1997).

Here, the district court failed to make an explicit record of its balancing of the Rule 403 factors. However, we may conduct a de novo balancing because the record contains a colloquy between the court and counsel that sheds considerable light on how the district court viewed the evidence. We conclude that even if there was probative value to McVeigh's proffered evidence, it was "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. . . ." See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thus, there was no error in excluding such evidence.

2. Background

Near the end of the trial's guilt phase, McVeigh's defense counsel made an oral proffer during an in-chambers hearing concerning the defense's evidence of alternative perpetrators. This proffer focused on Howe's expected testimony concerning her various visits to Elohim City in 1994-1995.

Howe allegedly would have testified that during her trips to Elohim City, she met Dennis Mahon ("Mahon"), one of Elohim City's leaders, and that Mahon was a violent opponent of the federal government. Howe would have testified that Mahon instructed her in the preparation of napalm and had shown her various bomb components at Elohim City, including a tap, green fuse, black powder, bolts, a funnel, and a grenade shell. Mahon also discussed the availability and cost of the explosive Semtex, as well as his experience in building and exploding a 500-pound ammonium nitrate bomb under a truck in Michigan.

Howe's proffered testimony also promised to discuss Andreas Strassmeir ("Strassmeir"), another leader at Elohim City, who allegedly discussed acquiring bomb components for Elohim City. Howe was to testify that Mahon and Strassmeir had discussed targeting a federal building in either Oklahoma City or Tulsa, or an IRS building. Howe also was to testify about the appearance at Elohim City in the spring of 1995 of James Ellison, who had developed plans to bomb the Murrah Building in 1983 before he was imprisoned on unrelated charges. Furthermore, Howe would have testified about the affinity of the Elohim City members for the people killed in the government's siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Finally, two days after the bombing, Howe told federal agents that she allegedly had seen two brothers at Elohim City before the bombing who resembled the composite drawings of "John Doe 1" and "John Doe 2," the suspects originally sought by the government in the immediate aftermath of the bombing.(11)

Separately from Howe's testimony, McVeigh's counsel also offered to introduce copies of FBI and ATF reports that McVeigh argued would establish that the federal investigation into Elohim City was suspended after McVeigh was arrested.

McVeigh contends that this proffered evidence was relevant to two separate propositions: first, that there were other perpetrators of the bombing, and second, that the government's investigation of the bombing was "shoddy and slanted," with investigators allegedly overlooking exculpatory evidence after they became satisfied that McVeigh was the principal perpetrator.

After hearing the proffer, the district court ruled, "Well, we've had a number of disclosures concerning Mahon, Strassmeir, Elohim City and now some additional information from Carol Howe. But my ruling is that it's excluded, not sufficiently relevant to be admissible."

3. Analysis

a. Relevance under Rule 401

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, "[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible," subject to the limitations provided by the Federal Rules and other laws; any evidence "which is not relevant is not admissible." See Fed. R. Evid. 402. Thus, the threshold to admissibility is relevance. The scope of relevancy is bounded only by the liberal standard of Rule 401, which provides that evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." See Fed. R. Evid. 401. As commentators have noted, Rule 401's definition of relevancy incorporates notions of both materiality and probativity. See 1 Kenneth S. Broun, et al., McCormick on Evidence § 185, at 774-75 (John William Strong ed., 4th ed. 1992); Wright & Graham, supra, §§ 5164, 5165, at 37-38, 48-50.

As for materiality, under Rule 401 a fact is "of consequence" when its existence would provide the fact-finder with a basis for making some inference, or chain of inferences, about an issue that is necessary to a verdict. See Wright & Graham, supra, § 5164, at 42-43. As for the degree of probative value required under Rule 401, the rule sets the bar very low. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587 (1993); Amoco Rocmount Co. v. Anschutz Corp., 7 F.3d 909, 919 (10th Cir. 1993). The rule establishes that even a minimal degree of probability i.e., "any tendency" that the asserted fact exists is sufficient to find the proffered evidence relevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. The Advisory Committee explained that the "any tendency" language establishes that the "standard of probability under the rule is 'more . . . probable than it would be without the evidence.'" See id. Adv. Comm. Notes (1972 Proposed Rules) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401).

b. Balancing under Rule 403

Even though evidence may meet the relevancy standard of Rule 401, a trial court still may exclude it on the grounds that its probative value the evidence's probability of establishing a fact of consequence is "substantially outweighed" by certain negative factors. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Those factors include "unfair prejudice," "confusion of the issues," and "misleading the jury." See id.

The danger of "unfair prejudice" under Rule 403 is not simply the tendency of evidence to undermine a party's position. Rather, the prejudice that is "unfair" is prejudice arising from the tendency of proffered evidence to suggest to the jury that it should render its findings "on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." See Fed. R. Evid. 403, Adv. Comm. Notes (1972 Proposed Rules).

The danger of "confusion of the issues" and "misleading the jury" arises when circumstantial evidence would tend to sidetrack the jury into consideration of factual disputes only tangentially related to the facts at issue in the current case. See United States v. Guardia, 135 F.3d 1326, 1331-32 (10th Cir. 1998). The classic explanation of this danger comes from Dean Wigmore: "The notion here is that, in attempting to dispute or explain away the evidence thus offered, new issues will arise as to the occurrence of the instances and the similarity of conditions, [and] new witnesses will be needed whose cross examination and impeachment may lead to further issues." 2 John Henry Wigmore, Evidence § 443, at 528-29 (James H. Chadbourn rev., 1979).

In the course of weighing probative value and adverse dangers, courts must be sensitive to the special problems presented by "alternative perpetrator" evidence. Although there is no doubt that a defendant has a right to attempt to establish his innocence by showing that someone else did the crime, a defendant still must show that his proffered evidence on the alleged alternative perpetrator is sufficient, on its own or in combination with other evidence in the record, to show a nexus between the crime charged and the asserted "alternative perpetrator." See Matthews v. Price, 83 F.3d 328, 332 (10th Cir. 1996). It is not sufficient for a defendant merely to offer up unsupported speculation that another person may have done the crime. Such speculative blaming intensifies the grave risk of jury confusion, and it invites the jury to render its findings based on emotion or prejudice.

Finally, after identifying the degree of probative value and adverse danger, courts exclude relevant evidence if the adverse dangers "substantially outweigh" the probative value. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.

c. Admissibility of Carol Howe's proffered testimony

Even if we assume that the proffered evidence had some marginal relevance, the Howe testimony cannot survive the balancing under Rule 403. First, we conclude that the probative value of such proffered testimony was slight because of its highly generalized and speculative nature. The fact that another group held similar anti-government views as did McVeigh and that some of its members expressed vague threats to bomb a variety of potential targets in Oklahoma, possibly including a federal building in Oklahoma City, says very little about whether this group actually bombed the Murrah Building. That others shared McVeigh's political views is a slender reed upon which to vault the dangers of unfair prejudice and jury confusion. Howe's alleged identification of "John Doe 1" and "John Doe 2" arguably increases the probative value of her other testimony. However, the composite sketches included no particular identifying features that would strengthen the significance of Howe's allegation of two matches. In fact, there are undoubtedly thousands of men across America who resembled the government's composite sketches. Finally, there was no evidence in this proffer, or in the record, that would establish a probative nexus between the alleged Elohim City conspiracy and the bombing of the Murrah Building.

In the face of the speculative probative value of Howe's testimony, we must confront the very real dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. The Howe testimony presented a great threat of "confusion of the issues" because it would have forced the government to attempt to disprove the nebulous allegation that Elohim City was involved in the bombing. This side trial would have led the jury astray, turning the focus away from whether McVeigh the only person whose actions were on trial bombed the Murrah Building. It also presented a threat of "unfair prejudice" as it would invite the jury to blame absent, unrepresented individuals and groups for whom there often may be strong underlying emotional responses.

Thus, the district court did not err in excluding this testimony.

d. Admissibility of suspension of Elohim City investigation

McVeigh's additional claim of error involves the exclusion of FBI and ATF reports pertaining to the activities of the Elohim City group. McVeigh contends that the reports show that the government's investigation of Elohim City was "shoddy" and "slanted" because they allegedly show that the government failed to investigate other potential suspects once it focused on McVeigh.

McVeigh's argument runs aground on both his factual and legal premises. Factually, these reports simply do not support his claim that the government's investigation of Elohim City was shoddy or that the government prematurely terminated the investigation. To the contrary, the proffered reports suggest that the government actively pursued the potential connection between Elohim City and the bombing, and that this aspect of the bombing investigation remained open well after McVeigh became the primary focus. The reports suggest that the government was unwilling to send Howe back into Elohim City, as a confidential informant, because leaders of that group had begun to suspect her status and she had received warnings that she would be in danger if she returned to Elohim City. These details in the ATF and FBI reports do not in the slightest offer any probative evidence for McVeigh's unfounded speculation that the government's investigation was shoddy or prematurely terminated.

The legal premise of McVeigh's claim that the quality of the government's investigation was material to his defense also founders. Admittedly, the quality or bias of a criminal investigation occasionally may affect the reliability of particular evidence in a trial, and hence, the facts surrounding the government's investigation may become relevant. See Lowenfield v. Phelps, 817 F.2d 285, 291-92 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that it was a reasonable trial strategy to attempt to argue that "sloppy police work" tainted the chain of custody for certain guns seized by police and "set the stage for an argument that others were implicated in the murders"), aff'd on other grounds, 484 U.S. 231 (1988). However, in McVeigh's case, he failed to establish the requisite connection between the allegedly "shoddy" and "slanted" investigation and any evidence introduced at trial. There was no trial evidence whose reliability would have been undercut had McVeigh been able to prove his contentions about the Elohim City investigation. To have allowed McVeigh to put the government on trial because there might have been something more the government perhaps could have done with respect to the activities of the Elohim City group would inevitably divert the jury's attention from the issues of the trial. See United States v. Veal, 23 F.3d 985, 989 (6th Cir. 1994) (upholding a trial court's refusal to allow a defendant to show that the government's investigation had been "sloppy" because "the jury would not be called upon to determine whether the government's investigation had been good or bad").

Under our system of criminal justice, the issue submitted to the jury is whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. The jury is not asked to render judgment about non-parties, nor is it normally asked to render a verdict on the government's investigation. The district court did not abuse its discretion, but rather is to be commended, in keeping the focus of the trial upon the issues properly before the jury.

D. CRIMINAL INTENT AND LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSES

McVeigh argues that the district court improperly instructed the jury regarding the intent elements of the mass destruction crimes with which he was charged and that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses for the mass destruction offenses and the first-degree murder charges. In particular, he contends that: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 2332a (1994) and 18 U.S.C. § 844(f) (1994) require the government to prove a specific intent to kill as an element of those crimes and the district court erred in failing to instruct on that element; (2) the district court erred in concluding that there are no lesser-included offenses to § 2332a and § 844(f) involving an intent of something less than a specific intent to kill; and (3) the district court erred in concluding that the evidence did not warrant giving instructions on second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder.

1. Standard of Review

Whether § 2332a and § 844(f) have as an element the specific intent to kill are questions of statutory construction, and so are reviewed de novo. See United States v. Agnew, 931 F.2d 1397, 1407 (10th Cir. 1991). Whether § 2332a and § 844(f) have any lesser-included offenses are also questions of law and will be reviewed de novo. See United States v. Duran, 127 F.3d 911, 914 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1389 (1998). We review for abuse of discretion whether the evidence warranted an instruction regarding second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder. See id.

2. Analysis

a. Criminal Intent on Mass Destruction Offenses

McVeigh contends that one of the elements of the mass destruction offenses charged in Counts I, II, and III is a specific intent to kill when the charge is that deaths were caused by a bombing. He argues that the district court should have construed 18 U.S.C. § 2332a and 18 U.S.C. § 844(f) as containing two levels of criminal intent, comparable to first-degree and second-degree murder, and as a result, the government should have been required to prove a specific intent to kill as an element of the crimes charged.

i. 18 U.S.C. § 2332a

Count I charged McVeigh with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction against persons in the United States and against property that was owned and used by the United States and by an agency of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a. Count II charged McVeigh with using and aiding and abetting the use of a weapon of mass destruction against persons in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

The version of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a(a) in effect at the time of the bombing provided:

Offense.A person who uses, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction

(1) against a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States;

(2) against any person within the United States; or

(3) against any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside of the United States,

shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.(12)

From the plain language of the statute, it is clear that "intent to kill" is not a statutorily required element of § 2332a(a). In fact, no level of intent is specified.

When Congress fails to specify the degree of criminal intent required for a statutory offense, courts will either read in a level of intent or hold that the statute creates a strict liability crime. See 1 Wayne R. LeFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 3.8(a), at 342 (1986). "ilence on this point by itself does not necessarily suggest that Congress intended to dispense with a conventional mens rea element, which would require that the defendant know the facts that make his conduct illegal." Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 605 (1994). "On the contrary, we must construe the statute in light of the background rules of the common law, in which the requirement of some mens rea for a crime is firmly embedded." Id. (citation omitted); see also Morrisette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952) ("[M]ere omission . . . of any mention of intent will not be construed as eliminating that intent from the crimes denounced.").

In light of the nature of the offense at issue and the severity of the prescribed punishments, we do not believe that § 2332a is a strict liability crime. See Staples, 511 U.S. at 606-07 (interpretation of statutes silent as to mens rea as imposing strict liability is generally limited to "public welfare" or "regulatory" offenses); Morrisette, 342 U.S. at 251-61 (reviewing history of the common law and the rise of regulatory offenses); LaFave & Scott, supra, at 342-44. Thus, we must decide the appropriate level of intent to read into the statute.

In United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 406 (1980), the Supreme Court indicated that we should consider the mental state necessary for each separate element of a statute. We find two elements in §§ 2332a(a)(2) and (a)(3) as they existed at the time of the bombing: first, using, or attempting or conspiring to use, a weapon of mass destruction, and second, doing so against persons in the United States or against "any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States . . . ."

We conclude that the intent standard of "knowingly" is appropriate for each of the elements of a § 2332a violation. See Bailey, 444 U.S. at 408 ("[E]xcept in narrow classes of offenses, proof that the defendant acted knowingly is sufficient to support a conviction."); see also Staples, 511 U.S. at 619 (adopting "knowingly" standard in face of congressional silence as to intent); Posters 'N' Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513, 523 (1994) (same); Agnew, 931 F.2d at 1408 (same); United States v. Swindler, 476 F.2d 167, 169-70 (10th Cir. 1973) (same); 1 Edward J. Devitt et al., Federal Jury Practice & Instructions § 17.02, at 606 (4th ed. 1992) ("Most federal criminal statutes . . . require proof that a defendant act knowingly or wilfully or have knowledge with regard to one or more essential elements of the crime defined by that statute."). Thus, we conclude that § 2332a(a)(2) requires the government to prove that McVeigh (1) knowingly used, or attempted or conspired to use, a weapon of mass destruction, and (2) knowingly did so against persons in the United States. Section § 2332a(a)(3) requires the government to prove that McVeigh (1) knowingly used, or attempted or conspired to use, a weapon of mass destruction, and (2) knowingly did so against "any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States."

The fact that the statute authorizes the death penalty "if death results" from the use of the weapon of mass destruction does not persuade us that the statute incorporates "intent to kill" as an element. Looking at the plain language and structure of the statute, we conclude that the phrase "if death results" is a sentencing factor rather than an element of the offense. Cf. United States v. Oliver, 60 F.3d 547, 552 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing "if death results" as sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 2119), cert. granted sub nom. Jones v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 1359, amended, 118 S. Ct. 1405 (1998); United States v. Williams, 51 F.3d 1004, 1009 (11th Cir. 1995) (same); United States v. Ryan, 9 F.3d 660, 669 (8th Cir. 1993) (construing "if death results" as sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i)), modified on other grounds, 41 F.3d 361 (8th Cir. 1994) (en banc); see also Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 1224 (1998) (construing 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) as sentence enhancement for a deported alien returning to the United States without permission). The natural reading of the text of § 2332a(a) is that subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) define the elements of the crime, i.e., the use of a weapon of mass destruction against specified targets. The penalties follow separately any term of years, life imprisonment, and in some cases, the death penalty. The proof needed to trigger the death penalty, however, is not necessary to prove a violation of the statute. Sentencing enhancements generally are not treated as elements and do not increase the government's burden of proof during the guilt phase of a trial. See Almendarez-Torres, 118 S. Ct. at 1230-32.

Further, even if the phrase "if death results" were to be construed as an element of the offense rather than a sentencing enhancement, it would not be an intent element but only an element of factual consequences. Nothing in § 2332a(a) links the "if death results" language of the statute to any scienter whatsoever. Cf. United States v. Woodlee, 136 F.3d 1399, 1405 (10th Cir.) ("[18 U.S.C. §] 245(b) expressly provides the government need only show the defendants' illegal conduct resulted in bodily injury; not that the defendants intended bodily injury."), petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 22, 1998) (No. 97-9239).(13)

McVeigh also contends that § 2332a must require the government to prove intent to kill because it authorizes the death penalty, which cannot be imposed absent proof of intent to kill. We are well aware that the government may not secure a death sentence without proving a certain level of criminal intent. See Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 797 (1982) (Eighth Amendment prohibits imposing death penalty on robber who did not himself kill or intend to kill or to employ lethal force); Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 158 (1987) ("[M]ajor participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability requirement."). However, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that Enmund did not establish any new substantive elements of a capital crime, and that these necessary findings may be made at any stage of the proceedings, including during sentencing or on appeal. See Hopkins v. Reeves, 118 S. Ct. 1895, 1902 (1998); see also Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376, 392 (1986). Thus, "intent to kill" need not be incorporated into the jury instructions during the guilt phase of a capital case if it is not an element of the charged crime.(14)

We also reject McVeigh's contention that, even if "intent to kill" is generally not an element of the charged offenses, in this case the government was still bound to prove such intent because it was charged in the indictment. This argument disregards Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit authority. Surplusage in an indictment need not be proved, see United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 144 (1985); United States v. Smith, 838 F.2d 436, 439 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Harper, 579 F.2d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 1978) ("When the language of the indictment goes beyond alleging the elements of the offense, it is mere surplusage, and such surplusage need not be proved."), and we have held that allegations of criminal intent that go beyond the elements of the crime are surplusage, see United States v. Kilburn, 596 F.2d 928, 934 (10th Cir. 1978).(15)

The instructions given the jury regarding the intent elements of Counts I and II were more than adequate. For Count I, which charged conspiracy to violate § 2332a, the jury was instructed it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt "[t]hat the defendant, Timothy James McVeigh, knowingly and voluntarily became a member of the conspiracy, with the intent to advance or further its objectives." We have held that the intent elements of conspiracy are that the defendant "knew the essential objectives of the conspiracy" and "knowingly and voluntarily took part in the conspiracy." United States v. Ailsworth, 138 F.3d 843, 850 (10th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 15, 1998) (No. 98-5276). The district court's instructions adequately conveyed those elements and ensured that to convict McVeigh, the jury would have to find that McVeigh knowingly conspired to use a weapon of mass destruction against persons or property in violation of §§ 2332a(2) and (a)(3).

For Count II, the court charged the jury that to convict it must find that McVeigh used a weapon of mass destruction against persons and that he acted "knowingly, intentionally, willfully, and maliciously." This instruction also ensured the jury would have to find the proper criminal intent. Further, beyond instructing the jury on the proper standard of "knowingly," the instruction added an element not required by § 2332a, the element of malice. However, this addition certainly did not prejudice McVeigh.

ii. 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)

Count III charged the malicious destruction of federal property by means of an explosive, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(f) and 2(a) & (b). The version of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f) in effect at the time of the bombing provided:

Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned, possessed, or used by, or leased to, the United States, any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, fined the greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed, or both; and if personal injury results to any person including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be imprisoned not more than 40 years, fined the greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing any property that is damaged or destroyed, or both; and if death results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years, or to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.(16)

Thus, the plain language of the statute indicates that the required criminal intent is "maliciously." See McFadden v. United States, 814 F.2d 144, 145 (3d Cir. 1987).

One acts maliciously if he or she acts "intentionally or with willful disregard of the likelihood that damage or injury will result." McFadden, 814 F.2d at 146; see also United States v. Gullett, 75 F.3d 941, 947-48 (4th Cir.) (same, construing 18 U.S.C. § 844(i)), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 134 (1996); United States v. Corona, 108 F.3d 565, 571 (5th Cir. 1997) (same). Consequently, to prove a violation of § 844(f) the government must show both a knowing use of the explosive and a malicious intent in doing so. For the reasons discussed above, we do not believe that to secure a conviction under § 844(f) the government must show an intent to kill. McVeigh's arguments to the contrary fail for the reasons discussed above.(17)

Here, the court charged the jury that to convict on Count III it must find that McVeigh acted "knowingly, intentionally, willfully, and maliciously." This instruction covered the necessary intent elements.

b. Lesser-included Offenses - 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332a, 844(f)

McVeigh argues that the district court erred in not instructing the jury on lesser-included offenses of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a and 18 U.S.C. § 844(f).

In Hopkins, the Supreme Court made it clear that the Constitution does not require a court to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses that do not exist under the law. See 118 S. Ct. at 1901. McVeigh's request for lesser-included offense instructions was based upon his argument that § 2332a and § 844(f) incorporated multiple offenses graduated by levels of intent, comparable to first-degree and second-degree murder. We reject that argument, and therefore, we find that the district court properly denied the requests for lesser-included offense instructions for these counts.

McVeigh, relying on Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980), suggests that it was unconstitutional for the court to force the jury into an "all-or-nothing" decision whether to convict him of a capital offense or acquit him altogether. This case is unlike Beck, however, because the jury here was not compelled to impose the death penalty on McVeigh if it convicted him of the charged offenses; rather, it had the opportunity to reject the death penalty during the sentencing phase. See Hopkins, 118 S. Ct. at 1901-02.

c. Lesser-included Offenses - 18 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1111

McVeigh contends that the district court abused its discretion in not instructing the jury on second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder.(18)

The killings at issue here were charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1114, which specifically criminalizes the killing of an officer or employee of the United States government. Under § 1114, we are directed back to the general federal murder statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1111, which states:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnaping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

Second-degree murder is a recognized lesser-included offense of first-degree murder. See United States v. Lofton, 776 F.2d 918, 918 (10th Cir. 1985); David E. Rigney, Annotation, Propriety of Lesser-Included-Offense Charge to Jury in Federal Homicide Prosecution, 101 A.L.R. Fed. 615 § 3 (1991 & Supp. 1997). For the purposes of this case, the only relevant difference between first-degree and second-degree murder is the existence of premeditation, which we have defined as:

The act of meditating in advance; deliberation upon a contemplated act; plotting or contriving; a design formed to do something before it is done. Decision or plan to commit a crime, such as murder before committing it. A prior determination to do an act, but such determination need not exist for any particular period before it is carried into effect.

United States v. Jenny, 7 F.3d 953, 957 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1062 (5th ed. 1979)).

The district court held that the evidence did not warrant giving a second-degree murder instruction because to convict McVeigh of murder the jury would necessarily have to find premeditation.(19) "'The decision of whether there is enough evidence to justify a lesser-included offense charge rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge.'" United States v. Hatatley, 130 F.3d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). "The trial judge does not abuse his discretion by refusing to instruct on a lesser-included offense when the evidence before him provides no rational basis upon which the jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense." Id. "Only when an appellate court is convinced that the evidence issues are such that a rational jury could acquit on the charged crime but convict on the lesser crime may the denial of a lesser included offense charge be reversed." United States v. Moore, 108 F.3d 270, 272 (10th Cir. 1997); see also Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605, 610 (1982) (defendant entitled to lesser-included offense instruction only when such instruction is supported by the evidence).

We agree with the district court that a rational jury here could not have convicted McVeigh of second-degree murder while acquitting him of first-degree murder. In this case, to convict of any murder, either first or second degree, the jury would have to find an unlawful killing done with malice aforethought.(20) See 18 U.S.C. § 1111. Once it had made those findings, based upon the record in this case, a rational jury would have to find premeditation, simply because the method of murder employed the bombing could not have been implemented without an enormous amount of planning. Once premeditation was established, the only applicable homicide offense was first-degree murder.(21)

E. GUILT PHASE VICTIM TESTIMONY

The government presented a number of witnesses during the guilt phase of the trial who identified deceased victims of the blast and described the impact of the explosion, including the carnage and destruction caused by the bombing. McVeigh divides this testimony into four categories: (a) detailed personal and professional histories of the witnesses; (b) accounts of witness activities prior to the explosion; (c) accounts of the explosion and its immediate aftermath as experienced or observed by the witnesses; and (d) long-term impacts of the bombing. McVeigh argues that the district court erred by admitting this testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and that the introduction of the testimony unconstitutionally allowed passion to overwhelm reason in the jury's determination of guilt.

1. Standard of Review

a. Rule 403

The admission of evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 generally is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. McIntosh, 124 F.3d 1330, 1338 (10th Cir. 1997). McVeigh argues that we should adopt a more exacting standard of review because of the heightened concern for reliability in death penalty cases, citing Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222, 230 (1992); Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 637-38 (1980); and Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 305 (1976).(22) We reject this contention.

Stringer and Woodson deal with rulings affecting the penalty phase of a trial, ensuring that each defendant in a capital punishment case receives an individualized sentencing determination. Those cases are inapposite to McVeigh's proposition regarding consideration of guilt phase determinations. As for Beck, the Court only focused on fundamental challenges to the charging process and did not establish a heightened standard of review for evidentiary rulings or other similar discretionary rulings by the trial court. See Beck, 447 U.S. at 637-38. Appeals courts after Beck have continued to apply a traditional abuse of discretion standard of review to discretionary rulings by a trial judge in a capital case. See United States v. McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087, 1099 (10th Cir. 1996) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to juror impartiality ruling), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1699 (1997); see also Wise v. Bowersox, 136 F.3d 1197, 1205 (8th Cir. 1998); cf. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 405 (noting that federal habeas corpus in death penalty cases is reviewed under same standard as non-death penalty cases).

b. Continuing Objections and Plain Error Review

McVeigh first challenged the victim evidence at issue during a lunch break midway through the testimony of Hunt, the fifth victim witness, by objecting to "extensive conversations and things not related to what the witness saw, heard, experienced during the relevant time period." The district court granted McVeigh a "continuing objection" to testimony dealing with the "long-range effects" of the bombing that went beyond the "immediate effects" of the blast.(23) Because McVeigh made no objections to the testimony of the first four witnesses (Lou Klaver, Michael Norfleet, Phil Monahan, and Richard Williams), we review the admission of that testimony for plain error. See United States v. McDonald, 933 F.2d 1519, 1524 (10th Cir. 1991). Similarly, we review for plain error that portion of Susan Hunt's testimony presented before McVeigh lodged his continuing objection.

We have serious doubts as to whether McVeigh's continuing objection was a proper form of objection for the victim testimony that followed. In certain circumstances, a continuing objection has been allowed as a specific, timely objection under Federal Rule of Evidence 103. See United States v. Fortenberry, 919 F.2d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Blackman, 904 F.2d 1250, 1256 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Ladd, 885 F.2d 954, 958 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Vinson, 606 F.2d 149, 153 (6th Cir. 1979); 21 Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice & Procedure § 5037, at 191-92 (1977).

However, continuing objections generally are considered inappropriate for preserving error on appeal under Rule 403. In United States v. Mangiameli, 668 F.2d 1172, 1177 (10th Cir. 1982), this court cautioned that "in our view, the considerations bearing upon a decision whether to admit or exclude evidence under Rules 404(b) and 403 are sufficiently complex that ordinarily neither counsel nor the trial court should rely on a standing objection with respect to evidence coming within the purview of these rules." See also People v. Smith, 203 Cal. Rptr. 196, 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). But see United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 n.2 (9th Cir. 1990) (allowing continuing objection under Rule 404(b)); Ladd, 885 F.2d at 958 (allowing continuing objection under Rule 403).

We believe that the question of whether a continuing objection under Rule 403 was effective to preserve the objection for later testimony should be reviewed under the same standards used for determining whether a pretrial motion in limine to exclude evidence preserved an objection to later-admitted evidence. A motion in limine will not preserve an objection if it is not renewed at the time the evidence is introduced unless "the issue (1) is fairly presented to the district court, (2) is the type of issue that can be finally decided in a pretrial hearing, and (3) is ruled upon without equivocation by the trial judge. . . . [M]ost objections will prove to be dependent on trial context and will be determined to be waived if not renewed at trial." United States v. Mejia-Alarcon, 995 F.2d 982, 986-88 (10th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). McVeigh never identified specific statements that he believed were unduly prejudicial. Given the sheer number of witnesses involved and the variety of factual contexts presented, the admissibility of victim testimony would not ordinarily be an issue that could be decided in a pretrial hearing or by means of a continuing objection.(24)

Nevertheless, in this case the district court explicitly granted a continuing objection to McVeigh on this issue. Thus, we feel it would be unfair to hold that McVeigh could not rely on his continuing objection. As a result, we review for abuse of discretion the district court's decision to admit testimony covered by McVeigh's continuing objection. However, "a standing objection should not be given broader scope than is found in its establishing statement." United States v. Lawson, 507 F.2d 433, 437 n.2 (7th Cir. 1974). A party may not rely on a continuing objection lodged on one evidentiary ground to argue a different ground for exclusion on appeal. See Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d at 500 n.2; United States v. Gillette, 189 F.2d 449, 453 (2d Cir. 1951). Thus, our abuse-of-discretion review is restricted to evidence within the scope of McVeigh's objection, as ruled on by the district court. The court's ruling allowed testimony regarding the "immediate effects" but "not the long-range effects" of the bombing. The continuing objection does not fairly cover witness histories, pre-explosion witness activities, or descriptions of the bombing and its immediate aftermath, and thus we review claims of error pertaining to those categories of testimony only under a plain error standard. We also review for abuse of discretion the decision by the district court overruling a specific objection lodged by McVeigh to Garrett's testimony describing the activities of the children present at the Murrah Building day care center before the explosion.

2. Relevance Versus Prejudice

McVeigh concedes in his brief on appeal that the challenged testimony was relevant, although he argues that it was only minimally so. He also concedes that ascertaining the line between factual and emotional descriptions of the bombing "is not always an easy task, and Mr. McVeigh's counsel were faced with the very difficult task of discerning when the testimony crossed the line sufficiently to object." However, McVeigh focuses his argument on the claim that the challenged victim testimony was so laden with emotionally prejudicial content that its admission violated Rule 403 and created a significant risk that the jury reached its verdict based on emotion rather than reason. Having reviewed the record, we find no plain error in the introduction of any of the guilt phase victim testimony challenged by McVeigh on appeal. Even if the district court abused its discretion in allowing the introduction of certain long-range-impact testimony during the guilt phase, we hold such error would be harmless.

a. Personal Histories

McVeigh identifies the following personal history testimony as objectionable: Norfleet's description of his career as a Marine Corps pilot in Desert Storm and various drug interdiction missions and the irony of his decision to accept a recruiting job in Oklahoma in order to placate his wife's desire that he avoid dangerous combat duty; Hunt's pre-continuing objection testimony about her educational and employment history and her reference to her "grandchild and beautiful daughter-in-law and an almost second daughter-in-law"; Helena Garrett's explanation for the reason that her son was in the day care center; Donna Weaver's description of her deceased husband's involvement in their sons' sports teams and her regular lunches and meetings with him downtown; and Dr. Brian Espe's, Capt. Lawrence Martin's, and Mike Shannon's detailed highlights of their personal and professional histories. McVeigh complains that this testimony "allowed the jury to get to know [the witnesses] as individuals and to be more receptive to the stories that followed." However, reasonable background information about a witness is always admissible, precisely because it allows the jury to make better informed judgments about the credibility of a witness and the reliability of that witness' observations. See 2 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence ¶ 401.04[4][a], at 401-37 (Joseph M. McLaughlin, ed., 1997). The evidence McVeigh challenges served this proper purpose. The defense asked similar personal history questions during direct examination of its witnesses. The personalization of witnesses through descriptions of their individual histories is inevitable. Although personalizing a witness can be overdone, the question of whether the district court erred in this case is not even close. We find no error by the district court under either an abuse of discretion or plain error review.

b. Pre-Explosion Activities

McVeigh challenges the following pre-explosion activity testimony: Norfleet's attendance at a "leadership prayer breakfast" the morning of the blast; Hunt's pre-continuing objection description of her encounters with various co-workers who died in the explosion, including one ordering the flowers for her wedding, one who offered her candy, and one who diligently made coffee; Garrett's recollection of her son Tevin's endearing interactions with his sister and of Tevin's tears when Garrett dropped him off at the day care center and the efforts of other children to console him; Martin's notation that Sergeant Bill Titsworth was killed because he chose the day of the blast as his first day of work even though he could have reported for work any other day over the next two weeks; and Regina Bonny's account of her reaction to ultrasound pictures brought in by Carrie Lenz, a pregnant co-worker who died in the blast.

For many of the same reasons discussed above, this testimony was proper. This evidence places the witnesses at the scene of the crime, demonstrates how they knew the deceased victims, and sets a foundation for their testimony describing the explosion, identifying the specific location of deceased victims in the building before the explosion, and explaining why individual victims were present in the building. See United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 781 (10th Cir. 1997) (upholding relevance of background information); cf. United States v. Sarracino, 131 F.3d 943, 949 (10th Cir. 1997) (approving the admission of evidence providing context to the crime charged under Rule 404(b)). The testimony allowed the jury to evaluate the accuracy of each witness' memory and determine whether the related details formed a consistent whole. For example, Norfleet's testimony about his attendance at a prayer breakfast explains why he came to the Murrah Building the day of the explosion (he generally did not work at the building) and why he took a specific route to the building that allowed him to notice the Ryder truck parked out front. The evidence also formed part of the res gestae of the crime, providing proof that the bomb interfered with interstate commerce and with government officials performing government business. See United States v. Kimball, 73 F.3d 269, 272 (10th Cir. 1995) (approving the admission of res gestae evidence).

In only one case do we find any potential prejudice: Bonny's testimony about the ultrasound pictures shown by Carrie Lenz. Nevertheless, the testimony was in response to a single question, and Bonny's answer comprised less than four lines out of fourteen pages of testimony. The prejudicial effect of the evidence did not substantially outweigh its relevance. Thus, we find no plain error. Even if we were to review the admission of the testimony under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we still would find no error.

c. Immediate Impacts

McVeigh challenges almost all of the testimony presented on this subject by the various witnesses,(25) including, for example: Norfleet's loss of his eye, fractured skull, and near-death experience, and his description of following a trail of blood out of the building; Hunt's post-continuing objection account of assisting a survivor who had lost an eye but who had not yet realized it and helping hold parents back as rescue workers brought out dead children from the day care center; Garrett's frantic search to find her son and her description of the dead children lined up on the street covered with glass combined with her pleas to "please don't lay our babies on this glass" because she did not realize that the babies were "already dead"; Weaver's search for her husband and her intuitions that he was dead; John Avera's rescue efforts, including finding a baby he heard choking, comforting a woman trapped in the rubble, and collapsing from his efforts; Luke Franey's remembrance of "running down the stairwell holding on the handrail and it being covered in blood"; Martin's substantial injuries and hearing wailing sounds from two female co-workers; Priscilla Salyers' panic while trapped under the rubble for four and a half hours; and Shannon's account of the rescue effort.

In order to prove the elements of the various offenses charged, the government had to prove, inter alia, that the bomb was a weapon of mass destruction used against persons and property, that the explosion substantially interfered with interstate commerce, which could be established by showing disruption of government operations, that the bomb foreseeably would result in death, and that use of the bomb evidenced a malicious intent to kill.(26) The bulk of the contested testimony showed either the magnitude of the destruction or identified the victims and the cause of death.

The description of the destruction and carnage following the explosion is the most emotionally powerful of the evidence presented during the guilt phase. Hunt's and Garrett's descriptions of the dead children from the day care center are particularly powerful. Nevertheless, even "[g]raphic depictions" of a murder are relevant to support "other evidence about how the crime occurred . . . even when the element is uncontested indeed, even when the defendant offers to admit to the element. . . ." Gonzalez v. DeTella, 127 F.3d 619, 621 (7th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1325 (1998).

Moreover, McVeigh concedes that testimony establishing the identity of the victims and the cause of death was appropriate, and that even the testimony he considers beyond the scope of any legitimate purpose was inextricably "intertwined with proper evidence." Because this evidence was legitimately part of the res gestae of the crime, there was no error in its admission.

d. Long-Term Effects

McVeigh identifies portions of the testimony of eight witnesses that he claims amounted to overly prejudicial discussions of the long-term impacts of the bombings, including: Norfleet's loss of his pilot status and of his "pride and joy" gold aviator wings on his license plate and his explanation that Sergeant Benjamin Davis died without learning about his acceptance into a Marine Corps officer training program; Hunt's testimony that she attended twenty-two funerals; Garrett's inability to kiss the body of her son above his waist because of his "severe head injury"; Weaver's testimony that her husband was "buried two years ago today" and that she felt fortunate to be able to identify the body; Martin's medical discharge from the Army as a result of his injuries just as he was slated for a possible promotion; and Cooper's attendance at two funerals and his description of the deceased men.(27)

Most of this evidence was not particularly relevant to the issues presented during the guilt phase. In addition, some of it had emotional content. See United States v. Copple, 24 F.3d 535, 545-46 (3rd Cir. 1994) (finding overly prejudicial the "victim impact testimony" regarding collateral effects of financial losses on the health and lifestyles of fraud victims that "went beyond anything that was reasonable to prove" the specific intent element of the fraud charge). However, even if the district court abused its discretion by admitting some of this evidence,(28) we believe such error was harmless. As for the admission of Norfleet's pre-continuing objection testimony, we find no plain error given the fine line between appropriate and inappropriate evidence under Rule 403.

A trial court's admission of inadmissible evidence will disturb a defendant's conviction only if the error is not harmless. The erroneous admission of evidence . . . is harmless unless it had a substantial influence on the outcome or leaves one in grave doubt as to whether it had such an effect . . . Further, cautionary instructions are ordinarily sufficient to cure any alleged prejudice to the defendant. Given the strength of the prosecution's case as a whole, and the cautionary instruction, we find the error harmless.

United States v. Cass, 127 F.3d 1218, 1225 (10th Cir. 1997) (citations and quotations omitted), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1101 (1998). The government bears the burden of proving the harmlessness of any error. See United States v. Flanagan, 34 F.3d 949, 955 (10th Cir. 1994).

We review the record as a whole to evaluate harmless error, see Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764 (1946); United States v. Tome, 61 F.3d 1446, 1455 (10th Cir. 1995), and find that the properly admissible evidence presented at trial that McVeigh carried out the bombing was direct and compelling, see Copple, 24 F.3d at 546 (finding error in admitting prejudicial victim impact testimony to be "harmless because of the overwhelming evidence" of the defendant's guilt). The evidence of the long-term effects of the bombing did not add much in terms of emotional impact to the emotional elements that necessarily flowed from the proper description of the crime itself and it occupied only a tiny fraction of the trial time. In addition, the district court delivered strong cautionary instructions to the jury,(29) which we presume the jury followed, see United States v. Hatatley, 130 F.3d 1399, 1405 (10th Cir. 1997). Consequently, this long-term-effects testimony could not have affected the outcome of the trial.

3. Constitutional Error

McVeigh complains that even if the district court did not err by admitting the testimony of each of the eighteen witnesses individually, the overall effect of so many witnesses describing the impact of the bombing allowed passion to overwhelm reason, rendering the guilt determination constitutionally unreliable.(30) McVeigh characterizes his argument as an Eighth Amendment issue. However, a claim that admitted evidence injected an intolerably high degree of emotion into the guilt phase of trial more properly involves an alleged violation of the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 75 (1991) (evaluating a claim that introduction of evidence "so infused the trial with unfairness" as a denial of "due process of law"). Thus, we address McVeigh's charge of error as a due process claim.

The testimony of the eighteen witnesses totals only 456 pages out of more than six thousand pages of trial transcript. More importantly, it is to be expected that such a large-scale crime will produce more powerful evidence than a smaller-scale crime. The emotional impact of the testimony stemmed directly from the enormity of the crime itself. We also note that the government in this case exercised considerable restraint in avoiding overly emotional testimony. The government did not introduce any post-mortem pictures of victims nor did it dwell excessively on the heart-wrenching devastation caused by the blast. On several occasions, the prosecution engaged in self-control by skipping over testimony it thought would cross the line or repeat testimony already delivered by another witness. Here, the overwhelming nature of the crime necessarily allowed the government to introduce testimony reflecting the magnitude of the act. Thus, we find no constitutional error.

F. DEATH PENALTY VOIR DIRE

McVeigh argues that the district court unconstitutionally restricted his ability to question prospective jurors regarding their willingness to impose the death penalty, violating the principles set forth in Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992), Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991), and Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961). Specifically, he complains that the district court prevented him from ascertaining whether prospective jurors would automatically vote for the death penalty and from determining whether prospective jurors' exposure to prejudicial pretrial publicity had biased them on the issue of punishment.

1. Standard of Review

The district court has wide discretion in conducting voir dire, including the type and breadth of questions regarding the death penalty and pretrial publicity. See Morgan, 504 U.S. at 729; Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 427; Sellers v. Ward, 135 F.3d 1333, 1342 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087, 1113 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1699 (1997). Although our review is deferential to the trial court, we will find an abuse of discretion if the court unconstitutionally restricted McVeigh's questioning during voir dire.

Once again, we are required to determine the effect of a continuing objection requested by McVeigh and granted by the court.(31) During voir dire of several prospective jurors, McVeigh attempted to ask whether, given the extensive coverage of the bombing's horrific effects, they were biased regarding the appropriate punishment for the bombing's perpetrator. The district court sustained the government's objection to these questions. During voir dire of the juror who eventually occupied seat 6, the following colloquy ensued:

[Defense]: I believe you've acknowledged that is really an accumulation of everything that you've seen and heard, you have at least some suspicion and perhaps a little more that Mr. McVeigh might be guilty; is that right?

[Juror]: Yes.

[Defense]: Do you have any sense of sort of parallel to that that if he is guilty, what ought to happen to him? Do you have any kind of predisposition toward that that you would want us to know about?

[Court]: That I'll sustain the objection to that just like I have always throughout here. I wish we wouldn't be repeating questions that I've ruled out.

[Defense]: Your Honor, may we have the record reflect that that would be a continuing question and that would be your continuing ruling?

[Court]: Yes.

[Defense]: Thank you, your Honor.

From our reading of the transcripts, it appears that the defense objected to the court's refusal to allow it to ask prospective jurors whether the facts of the bombing already known to them as a result of pretrial publicity predisposed them to vote in favor of the death penalty. Because during oral argument the government conceded the validity of this continuing objection,(32) we again accept the efficacy of using a continuing objection although that is a debatable proposition.

The jurors were seated in the order in which voir dire was conducted, so the continuing objection is effective as to the jurors in seats 6-12.(33) However, the objection does not cover the jurors in seats 1-5, so for those jurors we review for abuse of discretion only those specific questions the court prevented McVeigh from asking them.

2. Analysis McVeigh sought to ask questions regarding jurors' predisposition to the death penalty, especially any such predisposition resulting from the extensive publicity given to the horrific effects of the bombing. We first must determine whether the district court's refusal to allow McVeigh's questions was improper under Morgan v. Illinois, and then we determine whether the refusal was improper under Mu'Min v. Virginia.

a. Morgan v. Illinois

In Morgan v. Illinois, the Supreme Court held that a juror who would automatically impose the death penalty if a defendant were convicted of a capital offense is not an impartial juror and must be removed for cause. See 504 U.S. at 729. "A juror who will automatically vote for the death penalty in every case will fail in good faith to consider the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances as the instructions require him to do. Indeed, because such a juror has already formed an opinion on the merits, the presence or absence of either aggravating or mitigating circumstances is entirely irrelevant to such a juror." Id. The issue resolved by Morgan is often referred to as the "reverse-Witherspoon" situation, because Morgan arose from the line of death penalty voir dire cases exemplified by Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), and Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), in which the Court determined that a juror who would never vote for capital punishment is not an impartial juror and must be excused for cause.

"[P]art of the guarantee of a defendant's right to an impartial jury is an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors." Morgan, 504 U.S. at 729. General questions regarding prospective jurors' fairness and ability to follow the law, however, do not necessarily reveal jurors who would vote for the death penalty regardless of the facts and circumstances of the case. See id. at 734-36. Consequently, upon a defendant's request, a trial court is obligated to ensure that prospective jurors are asked sufficient questions to allow the court and parties to determine whether, should the defendant be convicted, the jurors have already decided to apply the death penalty, or whether they would truly weigh any mitigating and aggravating factors found at the penalty phase of the trial. See id. at 736.

McVeigh contends that the trial court violated Morgan by restricting his ability to question prospective jurors regarding their willingness to impose the death penalty. We have identified two types of Morgan questions McVeigh was not allowed to ask during voir dire. The first category consists of non-context-specific questions that generally seek to determine a juror's core value system, i.e., whether the juror would automatically impose the death penalty if McVeigh were convicted of a capital offense. We have called these questions "general Morgan questions." The second category consists of context-specific questions that focus on whether the facts of the bombing, as revealed through pretrial publicity, had predisposed prospective jurors toward imposing the death penalty on anyone convicted of this particular crime. This category we shall term "specific Morgan questions."

i. General Morgan Questions

According to our review of the record, only once during the voir dire of a seated juror did the court deny a general Morgan question:

[Defense]: If the allegations did if you served on the jury and heard all the evidence in the guilt/innocence part of the trial and the jury voted that Mr. McVeigh was guilty, would you feel in that instance that the death penalty automatically should apply?

[Court]: I'm going to exclude that question, because it isn't just a matter of the allegations. It's what the evidence altogether shows, which includes any possible role in the offense, so that's an inappropriate question. Move on.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the question. Morgan does not require courts to permit improperly phrased questions, such as questions that misstate the law or confuse the jurors. See Travis v. State, _So.2d_, 1997 WL 187121, at *5-7 (Ala. Crim. App. Apr. 18, 1997); Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1274-75 (Miss. 1994); State v. Kreutzer, 928 S.W.2d 854, 864 (Mo. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 752 (1997); State v. Bishop, 472 S.E.2d 842, 850 (N.C. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 779 (1997). Here, the district court obviously interpreted the defense's question to be predicated on the pretrial "allegations" made against McVeigh and it ruled that question to be objectionable because it asked the juror to speculate as to her opinion based on allegations not even in evidence. Although the question is admittedly ambiguous and susceptible of more than one interpretation, it followed a series of earlier questions about pretrial allegations, and we cannot say that the district court's interpretation of that question, as it was orally asked and in the context in which it was asked, was erroneous. As phrased, that question was improper, and therefore it was properly excluded.

Further, the question is susceptible of an interpretation asking the juror how she would vote on the evidence presented at trial. That is a question broader than the scope of inquiry Morgan requires. The question approved in Morgan was the following: "If you found [the defendant] guilty, would you automatically vote to impose the death penalty no matter what the facts are?" Morgan, 504 U.S. at 723 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court felt such a question was necessary to identify jurors who would always impose the death penalty upon conviction of a capital offense "regardless of the facts and circumstances of conviction." Id. at 735. Here, by contrast, the question was predicated on the assumption that the juror had heard the evidence and was asked, given that evidence and a finding of guilt, how she would vote on the question of penalty. Since the juror had not yet heard the evidence, the question improperly called for speculation and sought a precommitment from the juror. Numerous courts have held Morgan-type questions objectionable when the question was predicated on facts specific to the case at issue or upon speculation as to what facts may or may not be proven at trial. See Ex Parte Taylor, 666 So.2d 73, 81-82 (Ala. 1995); People v. Brown, 665 N.E.2d 1290, 1303 (Ill.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 398 (1996); State v. Kreutzer, 928 S.W.2d 854, 864 (Mo. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 752 (1997); State v. Kandies, 467 S.E.2d 67, 78-79 (N.C.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 237 (1996); Clagett v. Commonwealth, 472 S.E.2d 263, 269 (Va. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 972 (1997). Morgan was written as the reciprocal case to Witherspoon, and it is designed to identify potential jurors who would automatically impose the death penalty for conviction of a capital offense. When a defendant seeks to ask a juror to speculate or precommit on how that juror might vote based on any particular facts, the question strays beyond the purpose and protection of Morgan.

ii. Specific Morgan Questions

In contrast to the single excluded general Morgan question, the district court denied several inquiries that we have termed "specific Morgan questions" that is, case-specific questions on whether prospective jurors had been so influenced by the facts of the bombing, as revealed by pretrial publicity, that they believed death was the only appropriate punishment for anyone convicted of the bombing. The court's refusal to permit these questions was the subject of McVeigh's continuing objection, and similar questions were refused during voir dire of the jurors who eventually sat in seats 3 and 5.(34)

We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to allow the questions. As discussed above, Morgan does not require courts to allow questions regarding the evidence expected to be presented during the guilt phase of the trial. Further, we have held that Morgan does not require a court to allow questions regarding how a juror would vote during the penalty phase if presented with specific mitigating factors. See Sellers, 135 F.3d at 1341-42; McCullah, 76 F.3d at 1114. Other courts have issued similar rulings, holding that Morgan does not require questioning about specific mitigating or aggravating factors. See United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 879 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 2414 (1997); People v. Jackson, 695 N.E.2d 391, 407 (Ill. 1998); Evans v. State, 637 A.2d 117, 124-25 (Md. 1994); Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 338-39 (Miss. 1997), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 13, 1998) (No. 97-8681); Witter v. State, 921 P.2d 886, 891-92 (Nev. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1708 (1997); State v. Fletcher, 500 S.E.2d 668, 679 (N.C. 1998); State v. Wilson, 659 N.E.2d 292, 300-01 (Ohio), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 129 (1996); State v. Hill, 501 S.E.2d 122, 127 (S.C. 1998). In fact, some of these courts have held that such questions not only are not required by Morgan, but are also simply improper. See Evans, 637 A.2d at 125 (explaining why 'stake-out' questions are impermissible); Witter, 921 P.2d at 892 (same); Fletcher, 500 S.E.2d at 679 (same).

Like the general Morgan question discussed above, the questions McVeigh attempted to ask jurors 3 and 5, and the question subject to the continuing objection beginning with juror 6, went beyond the scope of Morgan. Essentially, the questions were designed to ascertain whether the jurors felt that the circumstances of the bombing were so aggravating that no mitigating factor could compensate. Thus, these were case-specific questions seeking to determine what prospective jurors thought of the death penalty in regards to this particular case, rather than the jurors' core value system regarding imposition of the death penalty. Morgan, however, is designed to illuminate a juror's basic beliefs "regardless of the facts and circumstances of conviction," Morgan, 504 U.S. at 735, not to allow defendants to pre-determine jurors' views of the appropriate punishment for the particular crime charged. Morgan does not require that the questions at issue be asked.

iii. "Life Qualifying" the Jury

We believe that McVeigh's right to "life qualify" the jury was adequately protected in this case. First, all prospective jurors were asked to fill out an extensive questionnaire prior to voir dire. The questionnaire contained a specific inquiry regarding prospective jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty, whether the death penalty was justified in all cases, and what they felt were the best reasons generally for imposing a death penalty and for not imposing a death penalty. Each seated juror responded that he or she could consider punishment less than death for a criminal act in which someone is killed. Consequently, the defense was able to ascertain even before voir dire whether the prospective jurors had an inclination toward automatically imposing the death penalty. Second, the court explained to prospective jurors that the law required the jury to give consideration to mitigating circumstances before deciding whether to impose the death penalty, and it asked prospective jurors if they had any "personal, moral, or religious views either against or in favor of the death penalty" and if they would be able to "give fair and impartial consideration to all of the facts and circumstances about this case and about Mr. McVeigh, before deciding what the sentence should be . . . ." Each of the jurors answered that he or she could. Third, each juror during questioning either by the government or by the defense indicated that he or she would be fair and impartial in deciding on a penalty. Finally, defense counsel was allowed to ask appropriately phrased Morgan questions of many of the jurors, and we see no reason why the identical questions would not have been allowed during voir dire of all the jurors. McVeigh was not denied his right to "life qualify" the jury by the district court's denial of his questions. See Ramsey v. Bowersox, 149 F.3d 749, 1998 WL 300520, at *5-6 (8th Cir. June 10, 1998) (although defendant's requested questions were denied, trial court asked sufficient questions to determine whether prospective juror would automatically vote for death penalty); Mackall v. Angelone, 131 F.3d 442, 451 (4th Cir. 1997) (same), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 907 (1998); McQueen v. Scroggy, 99 F.3d 1302, 1329-30 (6th Cir. 1996) (same), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 2422 (1997); Tipton, 90 F.3d at 878-79 (same); United States v. Flores, 63 F.3d 1342, 1354 (5th Cir. 1995) (same), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 87 (1996).

b. Mu'Min v. Virginia

McVeigh also contends that the district court's refusal to allow the questions subject to his continuing objection those regarding whether the extensive pretrial publicity about the bombing predisposed jurors to vote for the death penalty in this case violated his right to inquire about bias resulting from pretrial publicity. Essentially, he seeks to transport the principle that the Constitution requires inquiry into whether prospective jurors had "'such fixed opinions that they could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant,'" Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 430 (quoting Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1035 (1984)), from the guilt phase to the punishment phase of a capital case.

"Voir dire plays a critical function in assuring the criminal defendant that his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury will be honored." Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (plurality opinion). However, "[t]o be constitutionally compelled, . . . the trial court's failure to ask these questions must render the defendant's trial fundamentally unfair." Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 425-26.

In Mu'Min, the defendant had escaped from a prison work crew during his lunch break and murdered a woman. The murder resulted in a large number of articles discussing the case and giving detailed information about Mu'Min and his criminal history. See id. at 418. At voir dire, Mu'Min sought to question prospective jurors in detail regarding the contents of the news items to which they had been exposed, but the trial court refused; instead, it asked the jurors generally whether "the information that you heard, received, or read from whatever source, would that information affect your impartiality in this case?" See id. at 419-20. The Supreme Court held that Mu'Min's constitutional rights were not violated by the trial court's refusal to voir dire prospective jurors more specifically regarding the contents and detail of the publicity to which they had been exposed. See id. at 422, 431-32. It emphasized that the Constitution requires not ignorant jurors, but jurors who can lay aside any preconceived notions and judge the defendant impartially, see id. at 430, and that, in making a determination of impartiality in cases involving pretrial publicity, appellate courts should place "primary reliance on the judgment of the trial court," id. at 427. In short, the Constitution is satisfied when the defendant is afforded an impartial jury which will decide the case on the evidence presented in court rather than on information gained from publicity. See id. at 425-26; Patton, 467 U.S. at 1035; Irvin, 366 U.S. at 723.

McVeigh is correct that the principle of juror impartiality should be applied equally to the penalty phase as well as to the guilt phase. See Morgan, 504 U.S. at 729. However, Morgan did not abrogate Mu'Min's holding that the Constitution does not mandate specific inquiries regarding publicity; at least one court has held that "Morgan does not create a constitutional right to ask voir dire questions about the specifics of juror exposure to pretrial publicity and the content of that publicity." State v. Moseley, 449 S.E.2d 412, 426-27 (N.C. 1994).

We do not believe that McVeigh's right to an impartial jury was infringed by his inability to ask the particular questions at issue. We readily acknowledge that some of the questions posed by McVeigh might have helped the court and parties better determine whether the prospective jurors were impartial as to both guilt and penalty. However, because peremptory challenges are not constitutionally required, "this benefit cannot be a basis for making 'content' questions about pretrial publicity a constitutional requirement." See Mu'Min, 504 U.S. at 424-25. Rather, such questions are required only if not asking them results in a fundamentally unfair trial. See id. at 425-26. In this case, the record reveals sufficient indicia of safeguards for us to conclude that each prospective juror was impartial as to punishment, and thus that McVeigh's trial was not fundamentally unfair.

First, during voir dire the trial court emphasized to each juror that he or she must approach the case with an open mind, must not have any preconceptions about either guilt or punishment, and must make his or her own independent decision on the basis of the facts and the law presented in court. The court received from each juror an assurance that he or she could and would do so.(35) Further, the government and McVeigh were able to ask a number of questions regarding the prospective jurors' ability to set aside the effect of any publicity they had seen. Some jurors were asked and specifically stated that they could set aside the effect of any publicity when deciding on an appropriate penalty, and others stated more generally that they could set aside the effect of any publicity in their role as jurors in deciding the case. Even though the defense was not allowed to ask some specific questions regarding publicity and the death penalty of jurors 3, 5, and 6-12, every seated juror stated his or her willingness and ability to set aside the effect of publicity and to approach the case with an open mind. Finally, the voir dire questioning was reinforced during trial and during the penalty phase with instructions that the jury was to consider only the evidence presented in court and that jurors must disregard anything they had read, seen, or heard outside of the courtroom.

Moreover, the factors we identified in our discussion of Issue A above, in which we concluded that the jury pool was not prejudiced by pretrial publicity regarding the alleged confession, also indicate that the jury pool was not unconstitutionally tainted by pretrial publicity in terms of determining the proper penalty upon conviction. The change of venue, for example, removed the trial from a locality in which "the opinions expressed in recent televised interviews of citizens of Oklahoma emphasiz[ed] the importance of assuring certainty in a verdict with an evident implication that upon such a verdict death is the appropriate punishment." United States v. McVeigh, 918 F. Supp. 1467, 1474 (W.D. Okla. 1996). In addition, there was nearly a two-year lag between the graphic images of the bombing and the start of the trial, allowing time for memories to fade.

Finally, we note that the jury obviously was open to considering mitigating factors, because the jurors unanimously found seven of the thirteen mitigating factors McVeigh presented, including the sincerity of his beliefs regarding the government's actions at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho; that he received the Bronze Star for his Army service; that "he is a patient and effective teacher when he is working in a supervisory role"; and that he had no prior criminal record. Only two mitigating factors were not found by any juror.

In sum, although asking at least some of McVeigh's requested questions might have been the better course, the questions were not constitutionally required to ensure an impartial jury and thus we find no abuse of discretion in excluding them.

G. HOWE TESTIMONY AS MITIGATING EVIDENCE

McVeigh challenges the district court's decision during the penalty phase to bar the re-proffered testimony by Carol Howe. McVeigh contends that Howe's testimony about the activities and beliefs of individuals at the Elohim City compound in Stillwell, Oklahoma, would have shown that McVeigh was less culpable for the Murrah Building bombing because other people were leaders and organizers of the conspiracy. The court's decision to exclude this evidence, McVeigh argues, violated his right to individualized sentencing under both the Eighth Amendment and the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3591-98 (West Supp. 1997). We reject this claim because McVeigh failed to establish the relevance of the Howe testimony in the penalty phase.

1. Standard of review

McVeigh's claim on this issue implicates both constitutional and statutory standards for the reception of mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of a capital trial. Under the Eighth Amendment, "the sentencer in capital cases must be permitted to consider any relevant mitigating factor." Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 112 (1982); see also Dutton v. Brown, 812 F.2d 593, 601-02 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc). Similarly, under the federal death penalty statute, "The defendant may present any information relevant to a mitigating factor." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3593(c).

We review de novo the question of whether a particular set of facts may be considered a mitigating factor. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978) (plurality opinion). On the other hand, the abuse-of-discretion standard applies to whether the Howe evidence was relevant to McVeigh's proffered mitigating factor. See General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 118 S. Ct. 512, 517 (1997).

2. Background

McVeigh's proffered evidence on Elohim City during the penalty phase, this time in the form of a written proffer, largely tracked the oral proffer presented during the guilt phase. The penalty phase proffer repeated the information concerning anti-government sentiments at Elohim City and the interest of Elohim City individuals in acquiring and using explosives. The principal difference between the two proffers was the new allegation in the penalty phase proffer that two Elohim City leaders, Dennis Mahon and Andreas Strassmeir, had made three trips to Oklahoma City in the winter of 1994-1995 specifically for the purpose of "casing" the Murrah Building as one of several potential targets for a bombing.

The defense submitted its revised proffer shortly before the close of evidence for the penalty phase. During an in-chambers conference, the district court again excluded the evidence. The district court offered no reasoning except to say that it would "stand on its ruling"; thus, it appears that the court continued to believe that the Howe testimony was "not sufficiently relevant to be admissible."(36)

3. Analysis

a. Mitigating nature of playing a "lesser role" in a crime

The first question we must address is whether McVeigh's claim that he played a lesser role in the conspiracy to destroy the Murrah Building can even be properly classified as a mitigating factor. McVeigh's contention here relies on the "catch-all" mitigating factor in the Federal Death Penalty Act that allows a defendant to assert any other "factors in the defendant's background, record, or character or any other circumstance of the offense that mitigate against imposition of the death sentence." See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3592(a)(8).(37) McVeigh's assertion of the "catch-all" factor implicitly, and correctly, acknowledges that he cannot meet the elements of the explicit statutory factor for "minor participation." See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3592(a)(3).(38) For its part, the government apparently believes that because McVeigh cannot meet the elements of the "minor participation" mitigating factor, he is barred from presenting mitigating evidence to support his claim of a "lesser role" in the offense. See id. We disagree.

It has been the law of the land for more than twenty years that a capital defendant is constitutionally entitled to present any aspect of his character, record, or offense in mitigation of his culpability for the crime. In Woodson v. North Carolina, a controlling plurality of the Supreme Court held that "in capital cases the fundamental respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment requires consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death." Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 304 (1976) (plurality opinion) (citation omitted). Another plurality of the Court reiterated this view in Lockett, holding that "the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer, in all but the rarest kind of capital case, not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death." Lockett, 438 U.S. at 604. And finally, in Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 398-99 (1987), a unanimous Court held that its prior case law renders unconstitutional any death penalty procedure that prevents a capital sentencer from considering nonstatutory mitigating factors.

Congress recognized the import of this case law when it drafted the Federal Death Penalty Act, including the catch-all mitigating category under § 3592(a)(8). Any contention that the "minor participation" mitigating factor in § 3592(a)(3) precludes a mitigation claim based on evidence of a "lesser role" in the offense ignores the plain language of § 3592(a)(8). Any other conclusion would run afoul of the precept in Lockett that a capital defendant is constitutionally entitled to offer in mitigation any aspect of his character, record, or offense. See Lockett, 438 U.S. at 604.

b. Relevance of Carol Howe testimony to mitigation

We conclude that the appropriate relevance standard in a federal capital sentencing hearing is the same standard used throughout the federal courts under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, i.e., whether the evidence has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. As a result, in light of the catch-all mitigating factor in § 3592(a)(8), we must determine whether the proffered testimony from Carol Howe had any tendency to show something about Timothy McVeigh's character, record, or offense that would mitigate against the imposition of a death sentence.

We conclude that the Howe testimony was not relevant under this standard because there was a crucial hole in the logic of McVeigh's proffer. McVeigh contended that the Howe testimony would show that there "truly were 'others unnamed' involved in different aspects of the broader conspiracy," and that therefore McVeigh was less culpable. However, McVeigh never presented any evidence showing that he was connected to this putative Elohim City conspiracy, and Howe's proffered testimony made no connection between McVeigh and Elohim City.(39) Without any evidentiary link between McVeigh and Elohim City, there simply was no basis for the jury to conclude that McVeigh had a "lesser role" in a broader Elohim City conspiracy to bomb the Murrah Building. This hole in McVeigh's chain of inferences renders the Howe testimony not relevant to this proceeding.(40)

H. WACO EVIDENCE

During the penalty phase, McVeigh presented, and the district court allowed, evidence relevant to the opinion he held at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing pertaining to the events that occurred during the standoff between the federal government and the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas, from February 28, 1993, to April 19, 1993. This evidence consisted mainly of the testimony of experts familiar with materials, such as video tapes, magazine articles, and pamphlets, that McVeigh had likely seen prior to the bombing which were critical of the government's actions at Waco. However, McVeigh also sought to present evidence to which he had not been exposed prior to the bombing that he claims tended to show that the actions of the federal government during Waco were objectively wrongful and outrageous. In particular, McVeigh sought to introduce expert testimony, documentary films, and government reports critical of the government's actions at Waco. Much of this material was not even generated until after the Oklahoma City bombing had occurred. McVeigh argues that this evaluative Waco evidence was necessary for the jury to understand that his opinions regarding the events at Waco were objectively reasonable. It is this second category of Waco evidence that the district court refused to allow into the record.

There is no hint in the appellate record that the district court limited McVeigh's ability to present evidence regarding what he actually knew or thought of the events at Waco, up to the time of the Oklahoma City bombing, or that the district court denied him the opportunity to present to the jury his views regarding Waco. McVeigh's attorneys were allowed to argue that the events at Waco were both a motivating factor for the commission of the crime and a mitigating factor with regards to punishment. In short, the district court allowed evidence regarding the incident at Waco to be admitted, but only that evidence which tended to show what McVeigh knew of the Waco incident and his subjective perceptions of it as of April 19, 1995. In the words of the court:

I don't intend to try Waco here at this trial . . . it is one thing as to what Mr. McVeigh may understand and his view of it . . . . And somewhere you have to draw the line between, okay, we're not going to try what actually happened at Waco, but we are going to receive evidence about what is perceived to have happened.

This admonition to the parties is reflected in the penalty-phase opening statement in which McVeigh's counsel asked the jury to:

take a look at . . . the reality of what Mr. McVeigh believed happened at Waco. Now, we will not be presenting to you a trial about Waco. We are not doing that. What we are presenting to you and will be presenting to you is what Mr. McVeigh believed happened at Waco, because that's what's important in the calculus that is before you.

Several times during the penalty phase, the court provided a cautionary instruction to the effect that the events at Waco were "admitted only for the limited purpose of explaining Timothy McVeigh's views, perceptions and beliefs . . . . You are not here to determine what actually happened at Waco or to make your own evaluation of the Government's conduct in that or any other law enforcement activities." The jury was then presented, inter alia, with the following mitigating factors:

2. Timothy McVeigh believed that the ATF and FBI were

responsible for the deaths of everyone who lost their lives at

Mt. Carmel, near Waco Texas, between February 28 and April 19, 1993.

. . .

4. Timothy McVeigh believed that the increasing use of military-style force and tactics by federal law enforcement agencies against American citizens threatened an approaching police state.

Timothy McVeigh's belief that federal law enforcement agencies failed to take responsibilities for their actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and failed to punish those persons responsible, added to his growing concerns regarding the existence of a police state and a loss of constitutional liberties.

The jury unanimously found each of these mitigating factors to be present. McVeigh claims on appeal that the district court erred in refusing to allow the jury to hear his proffered evidence on the objective wrongfulness of the government's actions at Waco.

1. Standard of Review

We review a district court's determination that evidence is not relevant to a mitigating factor for abuse of discretion. However, because as a matter of law the sentencer must be allowed to consider all mitigating factors, see Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 113-14 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978) (plurality opinion), we review de novo a trial court's decision to prevent the jury from considering a mitigating factor.

2. Analysis

Under the federal death penalty statute, a defendant has the right to present mitigating evidence pertaining to "the defendant's background, record, or character or any other circumstances of the offense that mitigate against imposition of the death sentence." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3592(a) (West Supp. 1997); cf. Lockett, 438 U.S. at 604 (the sentencer must "not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death").

Evaluative evidence of the events at Waco that was unknown to McVeigh at the time of the bombing, including expert opinion evidence of the government's handling of that crisis, is not an aspect of McVeigh's character, McVeigh's record, or a circumstance of the offense of which he was convicted, nor does it meet the definition of any other statutorily enumerated mitigating factor. McVeigh was not involved in the events at Waco; thus what actually happened there, and what experts think of what happened, is not part of his character. Nor is it part of the bombing, which occurred two years later. Rather, only what McVeigh subjectively knew and believed as of the time of the Oklahoma City bombing about the events at Waco and the government's actions there qualify as mitigating factors. Thus, we find no error here.

Having determined that the proffered Waco evidence unknown to McVeigh at the time of the bombing was not in and of itself a mitigating factor, we must next determine whether it was nonetheless relevant to an enumerated mitigating factor, and whether the district court thereby abused its discretion in disallowing it. Two Supreme Court cases are somewhat instructive on this point. First, in Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986), the trial court denied the defendant's request to present evidence to the jury as to his good behavior in jail during the time before trial as relevant mitigating evidence. The Supreme Court held that this was reversible error because "a defendant's disposition to make a well-behaved and peaceful adjustment to life in prison is itself an aspect of his character that is by its nature relevant to the sentencing determination." Id. at 7. Under Skipper, any evidence that tends to shed light on the defendant's character is relevant mitigating evidence, and the defendant must be allowed to present it to the jury. See id. at 8; see also Dutton v. Brown, 812 F.2d 593, 601-02 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (mother's proffered testimony as to defendant's family background, medical history, education, and personality traits relevant to defendant's character). Second, in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 163-64, 168-69 (1994) (plurality opinion), the Supreme Court concluded that relevant penalty stage evidence included evidence that the defendant would be ineligible for parole if given a life sentence, once the government put at issue the defendant's future dangerousness.

Taken together, Skipper and Simmons stand for the proposition that proffered evidence is relevant to death penalty sentencing if (1) it is probative of an enumerated mitigating factor, especially some aspect of the defendant's character, or (2) it is offered in rebuttal to an evidentiary showing made by the prosecution in support of conviction or an aggravating factor. The second prong is supported by the Court's recent opinion in O'Dell v. Netherland, 117 S. Ct. 1969, 1973-74 (1997), in which the Court examined Simmons and reiterated the Simmons rule that the prosecution's showing of a defendant's future dangerousness gives rise to a due process right to "deny or explain" that showing. The objective Waco evidence proffered by McVeigh has no relevance to any aspect of McVeigh's character, or record, or the circumstances of the crime, or any other enumerated mitigating factor. Information about what actually happened at Waco and the opinion of experts, including experts working for the government, that the government mishandled the siege sheds no light on McVeigh's character, his record, or the circumstances of his crime, to the extent that the information was not within McVeigh's knowledge at the time of the bombing. Thus, the district court did not err in excluding such evidence.

Next, we ask whether McVeigh had a right to present this evidence in response to a prosecutorial "showing" that his beliefs about the events at Waco were objectively unreasonable. McVeigh points to the following: (1) in its guilt-phase closing argument, counsel for the government stated that McVeigh's reliance on the events at Waco as justification for his acts was "poorly reasoned"; (2) during cross-examination of penalty phase witness Dick Reavis, counsel for the government asked the witness if one of the video tapes on Waco viewed by McVeigh before the bombing was produced by a biased and potentially paranoid anti-government individual, suggested that some of the videos viewed by McVeigh on the topic of Waco featured statements by members of the Branch Davidians who are "convicted felons," and asked the witness whether the videos seen by McVeigh could have been inaccurate and deliberately misleading; and (3) at the penalty phase closing arguments, a government prosecutor opined that McVeigh entertained "misperceptions" about the Waco siege and that his explanation for his anger towards the government was "pathetic." Counsel for McVeigh did not object to these statements.

We find that these isolated incidents did not rise to the level of a "showing" by the government that McVeigh's beliefs about Waco were unreasonable. The objective validity of McVeigh's beliefs was never submitted as an issue for the jury to determine at the guilt phase, nor was the objective unreasonableness of his beliefs presented as an aggravating factor at the penalty phase. At no time did the government present any evidence tending to show that McVeigh's beliefs were objectively unreasonable.

In short, the three incidents at issue were nothing more than argument of, and examination by, government counsel. Because McVeigh's counsel did not object to them, we review for plain error.(41) See United States v. Oberle, 136 F.3d 1414, 1421 (10th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 29, 1998) (No. 98-5084); United States v. Nichols, 21 F.3d 1016, 1019 (10th Cir. 1994). Even if such statements by government counsel may have been improper, we must determine if they warrant overturning McVeigh's sentence. See United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1288 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 253 (1996). "[R]eversal is appropriate only if, after reviewing the entire record, we conclude that the error is obvious and one that would undermine the fairness of the trial and result in a miscarriage of justice." Oberle, 136 F.3d at 1421 (quotation omitted); see Hoxsie v. Kerby, 108 F.3d 1239, 1245 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 126 (1997); Ivy, 83 F.3d at 1288.

At the beginning of McVeigh's trial the court instructed the members of the jury that statements by counsel during opening and closing statements are not evidence. This prophylactic instruction, coupled with the broad scope of this trial, the vast amount of evidence presented to the jury at both the guilt and penalty phases, and the insignificance of the few isolated incidents in which the government disparaged the reasonableness of McVeigh's Waco views, lead us to the conclusion that these statements were clearly harmless and did not amount to plain error. The isolated statements by the government prosecutors at issue here simply do not qualify as "'circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result'" in the face of this court's inaction. Nichols, 21 F.3d at 1019 (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985)).

I. PENALTY PHASE VICTIM IMPACT TESTIMONY

During the penalty phase of the trial, the government presented the testimony of thirty-eight witnesses who described the impact of the bombing. These witnesses consisted of twenty-six relatives of deceased victims, three injured survivors, one employee of the Murrah Building day care center, and eight rescue and medical workers. Although significant in number, these witnesses comprised an extremely small percentage of the number of potential witnesses the government might have called to testify about the 168 victims who died in the blast and the impact of the explosion on the numerous injured victims. McVeigh challenges the testimony of twenty-seven of these witnesses, arguing that their testimony injected a constitutionally intolerable level of emotion into the proceeding(42) and resulted in the imposition of a capital sentence based on passion rather than reason in violation of Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991).

1. Payne v. Tennessee

Overruling Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), the Supreme Court in Payne held that the Eighth Amendment does not bar the admission of victim impact testimony in the sentencing phase of a capital trial: "[V]ictim impact evidence . . . is designed to show . . . each victim's uniqueness as an individual human being." Payne, 501 U.S. at 823 (internal quotations omitted).

Victim impact evidence is simply another form or method of informing the sentencing authority about the specific harm caused by the crime in question. . . . [A] state may properly conclude that for the jury to assess meaningfully the defendant's moral culpability and blameworthiness, it should have before it at the sentencing phase evidence of the specific harm caused by the defendant.

Id. at 825.

[E]vidence about the victim and about the impact of the murder on the victim's family is relevant to the jury's decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed. There is no reason to treat such evidence differently than other relevant evidence is treated.

Id. at 827. Thus, Payne allows the prosecution to introduce evidence during the penalty phase that provides "a quick glimpse of the life petitioner chose to extinguish" in order to show the value of the victim's loss to society. Id. at 830 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (quotation omitted). However, Payne did not overrule the prohibitions in Booth against the admission of "information concerning a victim's family members' characterization of and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence."(43) Id. at 835 n.1 (Souter, J., concurring). In addition, the Supreme Court provided that "n the event that evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair, the Due Process Clause . . . provides a mechanism for relief." Id. at 825 (citing Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 179-83 (1986)). We review de novo alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment and constitutional due process. See Nguyen v. Reynolds, 131 F.3d 1340, 1355 (10th Cir. 1997) (Eighth Amendment), petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 8, 1998) (No. 97-9448); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property Described as Lot 41, 128 F.3d 1386, 1391 (10th Cir. 1997) (due process).

Payne allows the introduction of victim impact testimony to aid the jury in making a "reasoned moral response" when imposing sentence upon a defendant convicted of a capital offense. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 319 (1989) (quotation and emphasis omitted). First, the sentence must be the result of a reasoned decision. The evidence must not be so unduly prejudicial that its admission allows emotion to overwhelm reason. Second, the sentence must be based on moral considerations. Because the consequences of the crime are an important ingredient in the moral equation, the government can present testimony demonstrating the harm caused by the defendant's actions. Third, the sentence must reflect the jury's judgment. The jury must balance all of the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors in determining an appropriate sentence.

2. McVeigh's Objection

On appeal, McVeigh challenges the introduction of the following six categories of victim impact testimony: (a) last contacts with a deceased victim; (b) efforts to learn the fate of a victim; (c) thoughts on learning of a victim's death; (d) life history of a victim; (e) pure love and innocence of children killed by the explosion; and (f) efforts to cope with loss by the family and relatives of a deceased victim. McVeigh also contends that the cumulative impact of the challenged testimony inevitably influenced the jury to render a sentence based on passion rather than reason in violation of Payne.

However, McVeigh's only direct objection to victim impact testimony during the penalty phase of the trial came when the jury was in recess after the first nine victim impact witnesses (David Klaus, Diane Leonard, Mathilda Westberry, John David Florence, Teresa Brown, Sharon Medearis, Dora Reyes, Pamela Sue Whicher and Kathleen Treanor) had already testified. As a result, we review the admission of the testimony of these nine witnesses for plain error. See United States v. Hollis, 971 F.2d 1441, 1454 (10th Cir. 1992) ("We apply a plain error analysis even when the error to which the defendant failed to object is of constitutional dimension."). We note that several of the key witnesses specifically challenged by McVeigh on appeal were included among those first nine witnesses. In addition, McVeigh's objection to the remaining testimony at issue only took the form of a continuing objection.(44) The record reveals no further objections lodged by McVeigh to any particular testimony.(45) Once again, we observe that a continuing objection was not appropriate in this situation. The precise nature of McVeigh's continuing objection was not clear, nor was it obvious how such objection was to be applied to each successive victim witness.

Nevertheless, because the district court granted the objection and clarified its precise scope, we deem the continuing objection to have preserved the issue for appeal. However, the district court only granted a continuing objection covering "testimony that . . . goes beyond the impact on the lives of the witnesses," and thus we limit the objection to the precise scope outlined by the district court. The limited scope of the objection, at most, could be argued to cover the testimony regarding the life history of a victim and the pure love and innocence of children killed by the explosion. Giving McVeigh the benefit of the doubt that this objection was couched in constitutional terms, we review de novo the introduction of those two categories of testimony, except for the testimony of the first nine witnesses. We review the admission of the remainder of the contested victim impact testimony for plain error. We will also assume that McVeigh adequately raised below his claim that the cumulative impact of the testimony violated his due process rights. Thus, we review de novo the question of the cumulative impact of the testimony. We find that most of the challenged testimony did not go "beyond the impact on the lives of the witnesses" because the impact on the life of a witness certainly includes the impact on that witness' family as observed by the witness.

3. Analysis

We find no constitutional error in the admission of the challenged victim impact testimony.(46) The devastating effects that the deaths of the victims had on their families and loved ones is "certainly part and parcel of the circumstances" of the crime properly presented to the jury at the penalty phase of trial. Bonin v. Vasquez, 807 F. Supp. 589, 613 (C.D. Cal. 1992), aff'd, 59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995).

a. Last Contacts

McVeigh criticizes the introduction of testimony about witnesses' last contacts with deceased family members, including Whicher's pre-continuing objection description of her last contacts with her husband and her children's feelings of regret at not hugging their father good-bye that morning, Treanor's pre-continuing objection account of her now deceased daughter's giving "me a real hard kiss on the lips and hugg[ing] me again and . . . rubb[ing] noses," and Gary Campbell's pride in watching his daughter who died in the blast show him her office and talking about her desires to succeed in her career. All of this testimony was properly admitted under Payne as relevant to understanding the uniqueness of the life lost and the impact of the death on each victim's family.

b. Efforts to Discover the Fate of Victims

McVeigh challenges the admission of testimony describing witnesses' often agonizing efforts to find out what happened to their loved ones. For example, McVeigh highlights the following pre-continuing objection testimony: Leonard's searches of various hospitals looking for her husband; Florence's week-long wait to learn the fate of his wife; and Treanor's realization that her in-laws and her young daughter were at the Murrah Building for an appointment at the Social Security office the morning of the explosion. This type of testimony is well within the limits set by Payne, as even McVeigh's counsel admitted during the penalty phase.

c. Impact on Learning of Death

McVeigh contests the following pre-continuing objection testimony: Westberry's description of her grandson's uncontrollable crying on hearing of her husband's death; Whicher's recollection of "screaming out that I wanted to die" and frightening her children; and Treanor's recounting of the recovery and return of her deceased daughter's hand six months after the explosion. McVeigh also takes exception to Gregory Sohn's testimony about breaking down upon learning of his wife's death and Sharon McCullough's account of her son's cries of "I don't want my dad to be dead" as he saw pictures of the remains of the Murrah Building on television and the prayer he offered later when he calmed down. Payne explicitly allows for the introduction of this kind of evidence describing the impact of a victim's death on a witness and his or her family. See Payne, 501 U.S. at 827; Gretzler v. Stewart, 112 F.3d 992, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997) (evidence about "the impact of the murder on the victim's family is relevant and admissible at a death penalty sentencing proceeding"), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 865 (1998).

d. Victim Histories

Numerous witnesses, both pre- and post-continuing objection, testified about the professional and personal histories of victims who perished in the bombing, including reflections on the admirable qualities of the deceased. McVeigh argues that this testimony impermissibly allowed witnesses to eulogize their loved ones. We disagree. Although victim histories arguably were covered by McVeigh's continuing objection, the unique qualities of a murdered individual and his or her life accomplishments constitute the core impact evidence describing a victim's "uniqueness as an individual human being" allowed by Payne. Payne, 501 U.S. at 823; see also Wiley v. Puckett, 969 F.2d 86, 105 (5th Cir. 1992) (victim's wife properly testified about places she and her husband had lived and her husband's character).

e. Pure Love and Innocence of Children

In discussing the suffering of children affected by the bombing, McVeigh contends that the government's witnesses prejudicially described the innocence and unconditional love manifested by children. For example, Don Browning related the story of a little girl from the day care center who had been outside the building when the bomb exploded. The girl approached a police officer and his dog, hugged the dog, and said, "Mr. Police Dog, will you find my friends?" Also, Glenn Seidl recalled his son Clint's counselor telling him that Clint was concerned because "Clint has never seen you cry. He's never seen you scared. He thinks the people that have done this are after you and him . . . and this very professional lady gets a tear in her eye and says that . . . [Clint] wants to pay" the counselor the $180 he has saved in his bank account to help his father. Even though covered by McVeigh's continuing objection, we do not see how the admission of this testimony violated Payne. If love and innocence are particular qualities of the affected children, then informing the jury of that fact is not improper. See, e.g., Payne, 501 U.S. at 814-815, 827 (allowing grandmother's testimony that grandson who lost his mother and his sister "cries for his mom," "doesn't seem to understand why she doesn't come home," misses his sister and worries about her); Washington v. Murray, 952 F.2d 1472, 1480 (4th Cir. 1991) (mother's testimony about "the impact of the victim's death on her small children" analogized to evidence properly admitted under Payne).

f. Impact on Families

Discussions of the impact of the blast on the families of the victims represents the bulk of the testimony challenged by McVeigh. A few examples of this evidence include: Leonard's adult son, who was married some time after the bombing, came to her at 3:00 a.m. one morning "crying very hard. And he said: 'I want my dad back. I want him to see me graduate from college. I want him to meet my wife and be at my wedding. I want him to see my first child.'" One of Whicher's daughters told her:

he has learned to hate, which is a horrible thing to hear coming from your 16-year-old baby. . . . She wrote a paper for school. The topic was a day that changed her life. . . . The paper said that "I never knew such a dark, horrible place existed until I had to go there; and I'm crawling my way out as best I can."

Todd McCarthy testified, "I am now charged with teaching my son love and compassion when all he sees is hate. And that's a job I don't think anybody would want to have." Michael Lenz, whose wife and unborn child were killed, nearly committed suicide:

[T]here was a point where I actually stuck a pistol in my mouth. I couldn't pull the trigger, thank God. . . . [W]hen I reached that low point in my life, there is nothing, nothing more dangerous than a man who has no reason to live. I've been there.

Sohn stated:

I have my wife's coffee cup that the children bought for her that says "No. 1 Mommy." Inside of that is our marriage license, two rings, and a death certificate. Sitting across the top of the table . . . is the cap that they were able to salvage that was her headgear while in uniform. . . . [I take these items] everywhere I go.

Poignantly, Sharon Coyne described the loss of her fourteen-month-old daughter:

I think that my fears of her dying when she was first born being confirmed was the very worst thing for me. When we drove home that night, the highway overlooked the Murrah Building; and by that time, it was very dark and it was raining and it was cold. And I truly, truly believed that my daughter was alive. You know, you don't ever thinkyou don't ever think that your own child is dead. And at this point, I thought that maybe she was in fact still in the building. And I think my biggest fear at that point was that she sat there in this building and she'd been there for 12 hours, she was in a dirty diaper, she didn't have a bottle, she didn't have me to hold her, and she was afraid. And I could picture her just saying "Momma," and I felt so guilty leaving this place.

Payne specifically allows witnesses to describe the effects of the crime on their families. See Payne, 501 U.S. at 827. All of the evidence challenged by McVeigh served that purpose. Thus, we find no error.

g. Cumulative Impact

Taken as a whole, this evidence is poignant and emotional. The question before us, then, is whether allowing such a substantial amount of victim impact testimony reflecting the magnitude of such a large-scale crime violates the limits on such testimony set forth in Payne. We conclude that it does not.

Payne allows the introduction of victim impact evidence in order to allow the jury to understand the consequences of the crime committed. See Payne, 501 U.S. at 825-26 ("[T]here is nothing unfair about allowing the jury to bear in mind [the specific] harm [caused by the defendant] at the same time as it considers the mitigating evidence introduced by the defendant.") (emphasis added); see also Williams v. Chrans, 945 F.2d 926, 947 (7th Cir. 1991) (holding that the prosecution "should not be required to present victim impact evidence . . . that [is] devoid of all passion. Such sterile prosecution of heinous crimes cannot be expected, let alone required.").

The bombing of the Murrah Building was the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the United States. The magnitude of the crime cannot be ignored. It would be fundamentally unfair to shield a defendant from testimony describing the full effects of his deeds simply because he committed such an outrageous crime. The sheer number of actual victims and the horrific things done to them necessarily allows for the introduction of a greater amount of victim impact testimony in order for the government to show the "harm" caused by the crime. In addition, the jury could not have been shocked to learn that some victims had exemplary backgrounds and poignant family relationships, nor that they left behind grief-stricken loved ones. As Justice Souter eloquently wrote:

Murder has foreseeable consequences. When it happens, it is always to distinct individuals, and, after it happens, other victims are left behind. Every defendant knows, if endowed with the mental competence for criminal responsibility, that the life he will take by his homicidal behavior is that of a unique person, like himself, and that the person to be killed probably has close associates, "survivors," who will suffer harms and deprivations from the victim's death. Just as defendants know that they are not faceless human ciphers, they know that their victims are not valueless fungibles. . . . The fact that the defendant may not know the details of a victim's life and characteristics, or the exact identities and needs of those who may survive, should not in any way obscure the further facts that . . . harm to some group of survivors is a consequence of a successful homicidal act so foreseeable as to be virtually inevitable.

Payne, 501 U.S. at 838 (Souter, J., concurring).

We also observe that in this case the government deliberately limited the victim impact testimony it chose to present, saying nothing about the vast majority of the 168 people who died in the blast. Nor did the government attempt to introduce any gruesome post-mortem photographs of the deceased. The testimony of the government's witnesses occupied only about two days during the penalty phase of trial. In addition to the government's self-restraint, the district court took a number of steps that significantly minimized the overall impact of the testimony. First, the district court issued a number of rulings prior to the commencement of the penalty phase on various motions in limine to restrict evidence by the government such as photographs and exhibits, a significant portion of which the district court excluded.(47) Second, at the conclusion of those rulings, the district court stated that it would allow "objective" evidence describing the "fact" of "the loss of . . . people to an agency and . . . the loss of a family member . . . the empty chair, but not the emotional aspect of that, the grieving process, the mourning process."(48) The government followed this instruction, and we have found few instances where the type of non-objective emotional testimony described by the district court was admitted.(49) Third, at the close of the penalty phase, the judge instructed the jury not to be swayed by emotion,(50) and we presume that the jury honored those instructions. See United States v. Hatatley, 130 F.3d 1399, 1405 (10th Cir. 1997). Finally, the jury deliberated for two days and made specific findings in McVeigh's favor on a number of mitigating factors. We consider all of these factors persuasive evidence that the jury made a reasoned, moral judgment.

Viewed in its entirety, we are well satisfied that the victim impact testimony did not move the jury to impose a sentence based on passion rather than reason and that the jury based its decision on a reasoned, moral judgment.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Timothy McVeigh's conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

*****

FOOTNOTES

1.On appeal, we review the evidence both direct and circumstantial, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the government. See United States v. Copus, 110 F.3d 1529, 1534 (10th Cir. 1997).

2.McVeigh's counsel, Stephen Jones, told the court, "Just so the record is clear, our position is that we think that the Court should proceed; that we'll do the voir dire, and if we can seat a jury, then we seat a jury. . . . That will be [the] acid test."

3.After the release of the Playboy story McVeigh changed course and requested a continuance. See McVeigh, 955 F. Supp. at 1281. The government urges us to limit our review of the publicity to the incremental prejudice caused by the release of the Playboy story. In short, the government seems to argue that by failing to ask for a continuance immediately after the release of the Dallas Morning News story, McVeigh waived all claims to prejudice stemming from that story.

Because the information reported in the Dallas Morning News story was amplified by the media after the time McVeigh chose to go ahead and up until the time he requested a continuance, we do not deem McVeigh's earlier decision to go forward in the face of the Dallas Morning News story to qualify as a waiver as to all of the influences of that story upon the media and the public. Thus, we review all of the publicity, including the Dallas Morning News report, for its cumulative effect on the jury pool. However, we do find the decision by McVeigh and his legal team to go forward with jury selection despite the publicity following in the immediate wake of the Dallas Morning News story to be relevant evidence that the nature of the reports was not such, at least at that time, that would preclude seating a fair and impartial jury.

4.McVeigh urges this court to compare the circumstances of this case with those of Coleman v. Kemp, one of the extremely rare cases in recent history in which a federal court of appeals has found presumed prejudice. See Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d 1487, 1538 (11th Cir. 1985). However, the circumstances and nature of the publicity of the case before us are a far cry from those in Coleman, both in pitch and character. Before Coleman's trial, highly prejudicial pretrial publicity was widely disseminated in the sparsely populated rural county where the violent murders occurred and from which the jury pool was drawn. Moreover, the victims were well-known and well-liked in the community from which the jury pool was selected, and it was revealed at voir dire that several of the seated jurors personally knew the victims, and one had attended the funeral of five of the victims. See id. at 1539. At an evidentiary hearing held on remand, there was testimony by local citizens and reporters that the community had irrevocably made up its mind as to the guilt of the defendants and the appropriate penalty. See id. In short, "everyone" in the close-knit community from which the jury was drawn "knew that [the defendants] were guilty and everyone knew they should be electrocuted." Id. The impact of the pretrial publicity in that case upon the seated jurors was much more pervasive than was the case with the McVeigh jurors.

5.In his brief before this court, McVeigh argues, at some length, that if news of a "confession" were brought to the attention of the jury during a criminal trial, the court would have no choice but to grant a new trial. The case cited by McVeigh, United States v. Thompson, 908 F.2d 648 (10th Cir. 1990), involved publication during trial in a local newspaper of the defendant's aborted guilty plea. This court held that the trial court's failure to question the jury about possible exposure to the publicity and to take measures to ensure that it had no effect on the outcome of the trial constituted abuse of discretion and necessitated a new trial. See id. at 650-52. McVeigh relies on Thompson to urge this court to equate the situation where the prejudicial reports are published during trial to situations where they are published before trial. In effect, McVeigh argues that the trial begins at the moment summons notices are sent out to potential jurors. This argument ignores the fact that when such publicity occurs before voir dire, the court and the defendant still have available powerful mechanisms to ensure juror impartiality, namely voir dire and the potential of a change in venue. For this reason, inter alia, we find that the two situations are readily distinguishable. See, e.g., United States v. Aragon, 962 F.2d 439, 441 n.3 (5th Cir. 1992) (distinguishing between pretrial publicity and midtrial publicity and noting that a stricter standard applies to the latter).

6.According to the government, only forty out of the ninety-nine venirepersons reported hearing about the alleged confession. McVeigh does not dispute this calculation.

7.The facts of Irvin can easily be distinguished from those before us here. In Irvin, eight of the twelve seated jurors indicated during voir dire that they had already made up their minds that the defendant was guilty. See Irvin, 366 U.S. at 727. Given that circumstance, the Supreme Court held that "[w]here so many, so many times, admitted prejudice . . . [jurors'] statement of impartiality can be given little weight." Id. at 728. To the contrary, none of the seated jurors in the case before us indicated that he or she had already made up his or her mind as to McVeigh's guilt, and all indicated that they could and would remain impartial until the end of the trial.

8.Although there may be some doubt whether this statement was actually made, for the purposes of this appeal the government concedes we must treat the report as true.

9.In the caption of McVeigh's brief, he characterizes this issue in constitutional terms, contending that the exclusion of his proffered evidence denied him "A Fundamentally Fair Trial." McVeigh's discussion, however, is almost entirely devoted to evidentiary considerations under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Only at the end of his argument does McVeigh contend that the denial of his proffered evidence resulted in a constitutionally defective trial, relying on Richmond v. Embry, 122 F.3d 866, 872 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1065 (1998). In Richmond, we held that the exclusion of evidence can result in a fundamentally unfair trial only if the excluded evidence was so "material" that it would have created "reasonable doubt that did not exist without the evidence." See id. We have no difficulty in concluding on this record that McVeigh has failed to make an adequate showing under Richmond to sustain a constitutional claim.

10.This circuit has required on-the-record findings for a trial court's balancing under Rule 403 when the disputed evidence is offered pursuant to one of the specialized character evidence rules. See United States v. Castillo, 140 F.3d 874, 884 (10th Cir. 1998) (remanding for on-the-record Rule 403 balancing of evidence offered pursuant to Rule 414); United States v. Guardia, 135 F.3d 1326, 1331 (10th Cir. 1998) (requiring "a clear record of the reasoning behind" a trial court's Rule 403 balancing of evidence offered pursuant to Rule 413); United States v. Kendall, 766 F.2d 1426, 1437 (10th Cir. 1985) (requiring a trial court to provide "specific and clear reasoning and findings in the trial record" to support a decision under Rules 403/404(b)).

11.The government responded that it had followed up Howe's report of seeing the "John Doe" suspects, and its investigators concluded that these brothers were not involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

12.In 1996 Congress revised § 2332a(a)(2) to include the element (which previously had only been implied) that "the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce, or, in the case of a threat, attempt or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce." See Pub. L. 104-132, § 725(1)(C). Because this bombing took place in 1995, we address the statutory text as it existed at that time. However, we note that the district court identified the jurisdictional element of effect on interstate commerce as an implicit requirement of the pre-amendment statute and required the government to prove that the bombing had an effect on interstate commerce.

13.In an argument raised for the first time on appeal, McVeigh urges us to analogize § 2332a to 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) & (j). Section 924(j) apportions punishment according to intent by providing:

A person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm, shall

(1) if the killing is a murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and

(2) if the killing is a manslaughter (as defined in section 1112), be punished as provided in that section.

Even if this argument were not waived for failure to raise it in the district court, see Tele-Communications, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 104 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir. 1997), we would find it unpersuasive because this is not a § 924(c) case. Further, the wording of § 924(j) actually works against McVeigh, because it shows that Congress is capable of differentiating permissible punishments on the basis of intent when it chooses to do so.

14.The requirements articulated by Tison and Enmund for imposing the death penalty are satisfied. The penalty phase jury verdict form instructed the jury:

For each of the following, answer "Yes" or "No" as to whether you, the jury, unanimously find that the government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Timothy James McVeigh, acted with the specified criminal intent to cause death:

The defendant intentionally killed the victims.

The defendant intentionally inflicted serious bodily injury that resulted in the death of the victims.

The defendant intentionally participated in an act, contemplating that the life of a person would be taken or intending that lethal force would be used against a person, and the victim(s) died as a result of that act.

The defendant intentionally and specifically engaged in an act of violence, knowing that the act created a grave risk of death to a person, other than a participant in the offense, such that participation in the act constituted a reckless disregard for human life and the victim(s) died as a direct result of the act.

The jury answered "Yes" to each of the four propositions. These findings support the imposition of the death penalty. See Tison, 481 U.S. at 158; Enmund, 458 U.S. at 797.

15.The removal of the "intent to kill" allegations from Counts I and II of the indictment does not mean that the criminal intent elements of those crimes were not alleged in the indictment. The indictment specifically alleges for each of the mass destruction offenses that McVeigh acted "knowingly, intentionally, willfully, and maliciously."

16.Section 844(f) was also amended in 1996. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 708(a)(2). As with § 2332a, we address the text of the statute as it existed in 1995.

17.The structure of the redrafted version of § 844(f) makes it even more clear that the phrase "if death results" is a sentence enhancement rather than a substantive offense. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 844(f) (West Supp. 1997).

18.McVeigh does not argue that he was entitled to instructions on lesser-included offenses other than second-degree murder, and the record does not indicate that he requested instructions on any offenses other than second-degree murder.

19.The court stated:

[T]his is an all-or-nothing verdict on the murder counts, because I don't see how the jury could rationally say, given the view of the evidence they'd have to take to reach a guilty verdict, that Timothy McVeigh was involved in this bombing [but] that there wasn't any premeditation in it.

20.The government here did not charge McVeigh with felony murder.

21.We are not persuaded by the hypothetical argument presented by McVeigh on appeal, in which he suggests that even if he premeditated the use of the bomb, he may not have known that the bomb would be detonated at a time at which it was likely that persons would be killed, and thus the jury could have had a reasonable doubt whether he premeditated murder. Without any evidence affirmatively present in the record to support such a theory, the question was not sufficiently in dispute that it obligated the district court to give instructions on second-degree murder. See United States v. Haar, 931 F.2d 1368, 1372 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Wright, 131 F.3d 1111, 1112 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 2309 (1998); United States v. Parker, 32 F.3d 395, 401 (8th Cir. 1994).

22.Although the caption to McVeigh's argument states that the admission of guilt phase victim testimony violated Rule 403 and "Rendered the Guilt Determination Constitutionally Unreliable," the only constitutional argument raised by McVeigh is that the Eighth Amendment requires a heightened standard of review under Rule 403 for death penalty cases. On appeal, McVeigh does not bring a Due Process challenge to the introduction of this evidence.

23.The objection was made in the following manner:

THE COURT: Mr. Nigh [counsel for McVeigh], did you have something before the jury returns?

MR. NIGH: I did, your Honor. I wanted to interpose an objection to testimony in the nature of victim impact evidence during the first stage. It's my understanding that two of the witnesses coming up are also witnesses in the second stage; and rather than interrupt during the examination, I wanted to impose -- or interpose the objection now.

THE COURT: What are you characterizing as victim impact? The type of testimony we've had from this witness and also from Mr. Norfleet?

MR. NIGH: Yes, your honor. Some of the previous witnesses, in terms of extensive conversations and things not related to what the witness saw, heard, experienced during the relevant time period.

THE COURT: Well, I haven't considered that we've gone beyond the bounds of what the immediate effects were; so as long as we're staying with the immediate effects and not the long-range effects, I think it's permissible; and you can have a continuing objection to it.

24.Before trial, McVeigh offered to stipulate to the identity of all the persons killed in the bombing, that all died as a result of the bombing, and that the eight federal law enforcement officers who were the subject of the individual murder counts in the indictment were killed while engaged in the performance of their duties. Relying on Old Chief v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 644 (1997), McVeigh filed a pretrial motion in limine to compel acceptance of the proposed stipulation and to exclude evidence offered by the government to prove the facts included in the stipulation as overly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The district court denied McVeigh's motion.

McVeigh argues that his motion in limine preserved a Rule 403 objection to the challenged testimony. We disagree. "[F]act-bound determinations dependent upon the character of the evidence introduced at trial" are inappropriate for final disposition through motions in limine. Mejia-Alarcon, 995 F.2d at 987. In addition, McVeigh's motion in limine only objected to testimony identifying the victims and the cause of death the very testimony McVeigh concedes on appeal was "appropriately admitted" and did not seek to exclude other evidence under Rule 403.

25.At one point in his brief, McVeigh complains that the government did not present this evidence in a way to minimize its emotional impact. However, the government has no obligation to minimize the emotional impact of testimony. Rule 403 is designed to insure only that the prejudicial effects of emotional testimony do not overwhelm the jury.

26.The district court ruled that the deaths of individuals other than the law enforcement officers that resulted from the explosion were not elements of the crime charged for purposes of establishing criminal intent but rather served as relevant conduct to enhance the penalty. However, the district court made clear that proof of the deaths could be admitted to show use of a weapon of mass destruction or substantial interference with interstate commerce.

27.McVeigh also challenges Espe's testimony regarding the recovery of some of the bodies two weeks after the bombing, Matthew Cooper's testimony about removing the body of Captain Guzman from the rubble, and Florence Rogers' testimony concerning the recovery of bodies after the implosion of the remaining structure, as long-term effect evidence. However because this evidence deals with identifying deceased victims, we treat this testimony as covered by our prior discussion regarding immediate impact evidence.

28.We again caution that we accept the efficacy of McVeigh's continuing objection. McVeigh did not object specifically to the testimony of the eight witnesses challenged on appeal. Had McVeigh objected to this evidence, the district court may well have been alerted to exclude portions of it. This illustrates the danger of granting a continuing objection in an area as nebulous as this.

29.The jury instructions stated in relevant part:

Under your oath as jurors, you are not to be swayed by sympathy. You are to be guided solely by the evidence in this case; and the crucial, hard-core question that you must ask yourselves as you sift through the evidence is has the government proven the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. It is for you alone to decide whether the government has proven that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged based solely on the evidence and subject to the law as I give it to you in these instructions. It must be clear to you that once you let fear or prejudice or bias or sympathy interfere with your thinking, there is a risk that you will not arrive at a true and just verdict according to the law and the evidence. If you have a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt, you should not hesitate for any reason to return a verdict of not guilty; but on the other hand, if you should find that the Government has met its burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you should not hesitate because of sympathy or any other reason to return a verdict of guilty.

30.At one point in his brief, McVeigh suggests that the sequence of the witnesses and the placement of their testimony in the course of the trial was improper. There is no legal basis for such an objection. The government can order the appearance of its witnesses in any way it so chooses.

31. See our discussion above under Issue E.

32.While making his appellate argument the government's counsel stated, "[W]e would say that there's no valid continuing objection to the guilt phase testimony but there is one [pertaining to voir dire on the death issue]. Because it is a predominantly legal issue under Morgan, that is a valid continuing objection and it brings in with it the general issue, can we ask case specific questioning [that] if you found 168 people were intentionally murdered by this defendant, would you really be open to mitigation."

33.We need only consider the voir dire of the twelve jurors who decided McVeigh's case, because the bias of unseated jurors is irrelevant to whether McVeigh had an impartial jury. See Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 86 (1988) ("Any claim that the jury was not impartial . . . must focus . . . on the jurors who ultimately sat.").

34. Juror 3 was asked:

[Defense]: What about do you remember was the most touching to you that really got to you the most?

[Juror]: About the children.

. . .

[Defense]: Did you do you remember thinking when you realized what had happened and especially about the children do you remember having any thoughts about what ought to happen to whoever did that?

[Prosecutor]: Your Honor, I'll object to this.

[Court]: Sustained.



Juror 5 was asked:

[Defense]: Based upon or let me put it another way. As a result of the the scenes of destruction that you have seen and the horrors that are associated with the bombing, did you form any opinion about the punishment that should be imposed?

[Prosecutor]: Objections, your Honor. We've been over this

[Court]: Yes. I've been sustaining that objection.

We note that besides being objectionable as beyond the scope of Morgan (as discussed in the text), these questions are not compelled by Morgan because they ask about a bias or prejudice prospective jurors may have felt at the time of the bombing, not at the time of trial. Jurors who previously were affected by publicity may be able to be impartial by the time of trial.

35.Morgan held that generic impartiality and follow-the-law questions were insufficient to determine if a prospective juror was impartial as to the death penalty. See Morgan, 504 U.S. at 734-36. However, the trial court's colloquy in this case was much more detailed than the general questions which Morgan held were insufficient. See Tipton, 90 F.3d at 878-79. In any event, in terms of a pretrial publicity inquiry, the trial courts have great discretion to decide in what manner the subject should be covered. See Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 427.

36.After the court announced this ruling, the government challenged the foundation in McVeigh's proffer for his allegation that Mahon and Strassmeier had made three trips to Oklahoma City to "case" the Murrah Building. However, the court made no comment or ruling on this aspect of the proffer.

37.The text of the catch-all mitigating factor provides,

(a) Mitigating factors. In determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed on a defendant, the finder of fact shall consider any mitigating factor, including the following:

. . .

(8) Other factors. Other factors in the defendant's background, record, or character or any other circumstance of the offense that mitigate against imposition of the death sentence.

18 U.S.C.A. § 3592(a).

38.The text of the "minor participation" mitigating factor provides:

(3) Minor participation. The defendant is punishable as a principal in the offense, which was committed by another, but the defendant's participation was relatively minor, regardless of whether the participation was so minor as to constitute a defense to the charge.

18 U.S.C.A. § 3592(a)(3). McVeigh could not meet the elements of this statutory mitigating factor because the jury's verdict during the guilt phase precluded him from arguing that the bombing was "committed by another."

39.The record includes one bit of evidence from the government indicating that a phone card attributed to McVeigh was used at a motel in Kingman, Arizona, to call the spiritual leader of Elohim City, David Millar, in Muldrow, Oklahoma. However, before the district court, McVeigh never argued that this evidence connected him to Elohim City, and in fact, McVeigh never even alluded to this evidence during the proffers of the Howe testimony.

40.As a result of our conclusion that the Howe testimony was not relevant, we need not, and do not, address either the district court's failure to make a record of its apparent balancing of probativity versus prejudice under § 3593(c) or the substantive merit of that balancing. We note that the Federal Death Penalty Act provides a different balancing standard for weighing probativity and prejudice than does Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Compare 18 U.S.C.A. § 3593(c) with Fed. R. Evid. 403. In light of our decision on relevance, we decline to express any opinion on the issue of whether the probativity/prejudice balancing of § 3593(c) comports with the holding in Eddings that the Eighth Amendment requires the consideration of "any relevant mitigating evidence." See Eddings, 455 U.S. at 114 (emphasis added).

41.Counsel for McVeigh did request that the court reconsider its ruling on objective Waco evidence in light of the government's cross-examination of Reavis, which the court refused to do. However, asking the court to reconsider its evidentiary ruling is not the same thing as objecting contemporaneously to an opponent's questions. Because counsel for McVeigh did not contemporaneously object to the government's cross-examination of Dick Reavis, we review it for plain error. See United States v. Nichols, 21 F.3d 1016, 1019 (10th Cir. 1994).

42.McVeigh does not argue that the admission of the evidence violated any statutory or evidentiary rules, nor does he contest the relevance of the disputed evidence.

43.McVeigh does not claim that the admission of the challenged victim impact testimony violated the limitations in Booth left untouched by Payne.

44.The objection was made in the following manner:

[Defense]: I know how difficult this is, but I must object. I thought that the testimony in the second stage was to be the impact of the empty chair. Instead, what we are spending our time on, 80 percent of it, is how these people found out their loved one died. And while I think that might be admissible, perhapsbut that's all it's becoming; and it is taking these most dramatic incidents, and that's the testimony. One or two, I could understand; but we're now into the teens on this list and it is coming in. And I think that we're exceeding the court's instructions. There has to be some balance and proportionality to this for the sentencing stage to keep the jurors' minds open until they've heard everything, and all I ask is some restraint and some balance.

. . .

[Prosecution]: We can restrict their [future witnesses] testimony from this point forward to traditional impact, if the Court wants.

The Court: Yes. I thinkthesethis testimony about last kisses on the lips, and so forth, is excessive.

. . .

[Defense]: The other place that I'm at, your Honor, is I can't expect the Court to be co-counsel to Mr. McVeigh and impose objections. And yet if I object, it seems to me I hurt my client more; but if I don't, I'm waiving valid points. But I don't know what a continual objection is under these circumstances; and I'll just do as my conscience dictates, I guess.

The Court: Well, I'm not going to expect you to object in front of the jury. You have a continuing objection to the testimony that you say goes beyond the impact on the lives of the witnesses. That's your

[Defense]: Yes. That's the basis of my objection.

The Court: And I think that we do have to exercise more discipline. As I say, particularlyI think that it's legitimate as to how they found out about thetheir loved ones. That's part of the impact.

[Defense]: Sure.

The Court: But I can'tI can't accept more of thisas this last witness about the little child and hugging and kissing and so forth. I don't think that's part of it.

(emphasis added).

45.McVeigh also made a motion in limine to exclude the victim impact testimony. However, because the determination of the admissibility in terms of both relevance and prejudice of each successive victim impact witness depended on the context of the specific testimony during the penalty phase, we do not believe the motion in limine preserved for appellate review an objection to the specific testimony of any single witness. See our discussion of United States v. Mejia-Alarcon, 995 F.2d 982, 986-88 (10th Cir. 1993), under Issue E.

46.Even if we found error, it would not rise to the level of plain error given the lack of clear guidance on the appropriate limits of victim impact testimony under Payne that existed at the time of the trial.

47.For example, the district court prohibited the introduction of wedding photographs and home videos.

48.In fact, McVeigh states that he does not fault the standard for reviewing testimony under Payne set forth by the district court. In addition, McVeigh did not object at the pre-trial hearing to any of the proffered victim impact testimony. Although he expressed opposition to the testimony of two of the rescue workers, he did not even lodge a formal objection to that evidence, ending the discussion on the subject by stating, "We'll try to work that out."

49.The district court's admonitions were stricter than those we have found to be required by Payne. Thus, even though some of the emotional accounts of learning about the fate of a loved one might have violated the district court's standard, the admission of that limited amount of testimony did not run afoul of Payne.

50.The district court instructed the jury in relevant part:

Your role in this process is to be the conscience of the community in making a moral judgment about the worth of a specific life balanced against the societal value of what the government contends to be or is the deserved punishment for these particular crimes. Your decision must be a reasoned one free from the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor.



mcveigh001.jpg


Timothy with his sister Patty


mcveigh002.JPG

Timothy McVeigh child


mcveigh003.jpg

Timothy adolescent


mcveigh004.jpg

Timothy McVeigh


mcveigh011.jpg

Timothy McVeigh


mcveigh012.jpg

Timothy McVeigh


mcveigh013.jpg

Timothy McVeigh


mcveigh014.jpg

Timothy McVeigh


mcveigh015.jpg

Timothy McVeigh


mcveigh016.jpg

Timothy McVeigh


mcveigh017.JPG

Timothy McVeigh


mcveigh021.JPG

McVeigh being interviewed by a reporter in Waco in 1993 (Merville/Gamma Liason)
 
Back
Top