Quantcast
Channel: Domestic Violence – Bonnie's Blog of Crime
Viewing all 1310 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Parents Gone Wild! Tylesha Griffin and Donnell Coakley Sr along with Dominique Lott are charged with child abuse homicide of Donnell Coakley Jr

March 10, 2015, 2:40 pm
↧
Search

Teens That Kill: Ashlee Martinson charged with killing her stepfather and mother, Thomas and Jennifer Ayers

March 10, 2015, 2:15 pm
$
0
0
↧
↧

Deadly Women: Pamela Carole Moss – She killed her mother in 1996, then released from prison and killed William Douglas Coker in 2012

March 10, 2015, 6:46 pm
$
0
0

Doug Coker
Doug Coker

Victims
Barbara Sherman Frye, 64 [2/16/1996] her mother (no picture)
William Douglas “Doug” Coker [3/13/2012]

Find-A-Grave: Barbara Sherman Frye
Mr. William Douglas “Doug” Coker, Sr. obituary
Former Roman sentenced
Henry, Jones county officials confirm businessman’s death
Suspect identified in River North homicide
Jones woman charged in businessman’s killing hospitalized, in coma
Accused Jones Killer Also Poisoned Mother
Moss indicted by grand jury for Coker murder
Grand Jury heard details of Coker’s death
Guilty
Murderpedia: Pamela Carole Moss
ID network to feature Henry case
Coker case to air on ID network in March

Movies/Documentaries
See No Evil: Doug Coker

INMATE INFORMATION

PamelaMoss prison mug

MOSS, PAMELA CAROLE
GDC ID: 0000950071
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

YOB: 1957
RACE: WHITE
GENDER: FEMALE
HEIGHT: 5’05”
WEIGHT: 210
EYE COLOR: GREEN
HAIR COLOR: BROWN
SCARS, MARKS, TATTOOS

INCARCERATION DETAILS
MAJOR OFFENSE: MURDER
MOST RECENT INSTITUTION: PULASKI STATE PRISON
MAX POSSIBLE RELEASE DATE: LIFE, W/O PAROLE Important Release Information
For parole information please go to Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles website.

ACTUAL RELEASE DATE: CURRENTLY SERVING
CURRENT STATUS: ACTIVE
KNOWN ALIASES

A.K.A. FRYE,PAMELA
A.K.A. FRYE,PAMELA CARRIE
A.K.A. MOSS,PAMELA CAROLE
STATE OF GEORGIA – CURRENT SENTENCES

CASE NO: 777926
OFFENSE: MURDER
CONVICTION COUNTY: JONES COUNTY
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/13/2012
SENTENCE LENGTH: NOT AVAILABLE

STATE OF GEORGIA – PRIOR SENTENCES

CASE NO: 385188
OFFENSE: INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
CONVICTION COUNTY: BIBB COUNTY
CRIME COMMIT DATE: 02/16/1996
SENTENCE LENGTH: 10 YEARS, 0 MONTHS, 0 DAYS

STATE OF GEORGIA – INCARCERATION HISTORY

INCARCERATION BEGIN INCARCERATION END
09/11/2013 ACTIVE
12/17/1997 07/27/2005


↧

Monsters Among Us: Willie Trottie executed for killing his ex-girlfriend, Barbara Nell Canada, and her brother, Titus C. Canada

March 11, 2015, 12:05 pm
$
0
0

Canada siblingsTrottie and Barbara began dating in 1989 and soon thereafter began living together and had a child. In September 1992, Trottie and Barbara
separated and she moved in with her family. After some time, the relationship soured and Barbara moved out. Trottie threatened that he would kill her if she did not return to him. He repeated the threat regularly, called Barbara constantly at home and at work, hit Barbara, bumped her car with his own while traveling at highway speed, and once kidnapped Barbara. In March 1993, Barbara obtained a protective order against Trottie. In April 1993, Trottie told Barbara that he would kill her if she did not return to him by May 1, 1993. On May 3, 1993, Trottie called Barbara and repeated his threat to kill her and her brother Titus, because, Trottie claimed, Titus had gotten in the
way of their reunion.
Trottie arrived at Titus’s house at approximately 11:00 p.m. on May 3, 1993, armed with a semi-automatic 9mm pistol. At the time, there were numerous family members in the house, including five children under the age of seven. Trottie opened fire immediately, wounding Barbara’s mother, sister, and Titus. Titus returned fire, wounding Trottie. Trottie then cornered Barbara and shot her eleven times, saying “B–ch, I told you I was going to kill you.” Trottie then returned to where Titus lay wounded and shot him twice in the back of the head.

Victims
Barbara Nell Canada, 24
Titus C. Canada, 29

Willie Tyrone Trottie stated that he did the murders in self-defense. Amazing, since Barbara was shot 8-11 times. Self defense? I do not believe it for a minute.

Media Advisory: Willie Tyrone Trottie scheduled for execution
Willie Tyrone Trottie v William Stephens 2014 (denied)
Willie Tyrone Trottie v Brad Livingston, et al. 2014 (writ of habeas corpus – affirmed conviction and sentence)
Willie Tyrone Trottie #1388
Death Row Inmate Trottie Executed for 1993 Murders
Harris County man executed for 1993 murders
Murderpedia: Willie Tyrone Trottie

Movies/Documentaries
The Mind of a Murderer: Rage and Rampage

INMATE INFORMATION

Final words:
“Nesha, I love you. I hope this brings you some closure. Titus, if his kids are out there, I’m sorry for your dad. Shan, Charlotte, Baisey, I love you. T.T., I love you. Stay strong.

Michelle, Tammy, Damen, I’m going home. Lawrence, I love you. I am going home to be with the Lord. Find it in your hearts to forgive me. I’m sorry, stay strong. Jesus, take me home.”

Willie Trottie

Inmate Information


↧

Deadly Wives: Nancy Kissel *The Milkshake Murder*

March 12, 2015, 1:21 pm
$
0
0
↧
↧

Psycho For Love: Michel Escoto killed his wife, Wendy Trapaga, of just 4 days – Why? For the $1 million insurance; Sentenced to LWOP

March 15, 2015, 6:15 pm
$
0
0

dvawareness3

Wendy Trapaga
Wendy Trapaga

Find-A-Grave: Wendy Marie Trapaga
Husband On Trial For Alleged Murder Of Wife For $1 Million Insurance Policy
Escoto Held In Contempt Of Court In Newlywed Murder Trial
State Rests Case In Escoto Newlywed Murder Trial
New Video Shows Relationship of Newlywed Murder Couple
Michel Escoto’s ex-girlfriend says she helped him practice killing wife
Escoto Calls “The Other Woman” As First Witness In Newlywed Murder Trial
Witness: Possibly Two Assailants In Newlywed Murder Case
Suspected Killer Cross-Examines Ex-Girlfriend in Own Wife’s Murder Trial
DNA Expert Takes Stand In “Newlywed Murder Trial”
Closing Arguments Underway In “Newlywed Murder Trial”
Guilty Verdict In Newlywed Murder Trial
Life sentence for Miami-Dade man convicted of 2002 murder of new wife
Newlywed Bride Killer Sentenced To Life In Prison
Miami man who killed bride for insurance money gets life

Movies/Documentaries
Dateline: Mystery in South Beach

INMATE INFORMATION

MichelEscoto prison mug

DC Number: M00510
Name: ESCOTO, MICHEL
Race: WHITE
Sex: MALE
Hair Color: BROWN
Eye Color: GREEN
Height: 6’02”
Weight: 220 lbs.
Birth Date: 08/29/1971
Initial Receipt Date: 05/21/2014
Current Facility: FRANKLIN C.I.
Current Custody: CLOSE
Current Release Date: SENTENCED TO LIFE

Aliases:
MICHAEL ESCOTO
MICHEL ESCOTO

Scars, Marks, and Tattoos:
Type Location Description
TATTOO LEFT ARM HEART WINGS
TATTOO RIGHT ARM SCORPION

Current Prison Sentence History:
Offense Date Offense Sentence Date County Case No. Prison Sentence Length
10/14/2002 1ST DG MUR/PREMED. OR ATT. 05/07/2014 MIAMI-DADE 0525794 SENTENCED TO LIFE

Note: The offense descriptions are truncated and do not necessarily reflect the crime of conviction. Please refer to the court documents or the Florida Statutes for further information or definition.

Incarceration History:
Date In-Custody 05/21/2014
Date Out-of-Custody Currently Incarcerated


↧

Monsters Among Us: Tracy Beatty killed his mother, Carolyn “Callie” Click; Sentenced to death

March 19, 2015, 7:17 pm
$
0
0

dvawareness3From Tracy Beatty’s appeal: Appellant and Click had a volatile and combative relationship. Appellant moved into Click’s house in early October 2003. Although Click told her next-door neighbor and close friend, Betty McCarty, that appellant had assaulted her several times in the past, Click said that she was excited about appellant’s arrival. Click’s excitement, however, vanished shortly after appellant moved in. McCarty testified that Click told her that she asked appellant to leave sometime in October and a second time on November 25, 2003–two days before Thanksgiving and the last day Click was seen alive. Around 4:00 p.m. on November 25th, Click went to McCarty’s house. Click was “stressed out and crying.” Click told McCarty that she was unhappy about the way things were going with appellant and that she had asked appellant to leave:

[Prosecutor:] What did [Click] tell you?

[McCarty:] That she had asked him to leave that day, and that – she said, “I put up with all I’m going to put up with, and I had asked him to leave,” and she was upset about it. And that’s the last time I saw her.

[Prosecutor:] Did she tell you what time that day she had told [appellant] to leave?

[McCarty:] No, sir.

Although McCarty initially testified that Click said that she “asked” appellant to leave, she later clarified that Click said, “I told [appellant] to leave today.” McCarty did not know exactly when the conversation with appellant had occurred that day or when appellant was supposed to leave:

[Defense counsel:] Did [Click] say specifically when . . . she had that conversation with [appellant] or when he was supposed to leave by?

[McCarty:] No, sir. I saw her at 4:00, and I didn’t know anything about it until that time. So I don’t know what time she told him.

Appellant’s cousin, Stacey Killough, testified that appellant arrived at her house later that day between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. driving Click’s car. Killough testified that the drive from Click’s house to her house takes approximately forty-five minutes. Appellant smelled of alcohol but was not intoxicated. Noting Click’s absence, Killough became suspicious because Click was “very protective” of her car and never let anyone else drive it. In fact, Killough had previously seen Click refuse to let appellant drive the car. When Killough asked appellant where Click was, appellant told her that Click was out of town with a friend and would not be back for a few weeks. Because Killough was busy, appellant stayed at Killough’s house for only five to ten minutes.

Lieanna Wilkerson testified that she lived across the road from Click and that they had become close friends. Click told Wilkerson that appellant had assaulted her on several occasions in the past. Once appellant had “beaten her so severely that he had left her for dead.” Click was nevertheless excited that appellant was coming to live with her and hoped that she and appellant could mend their relationship. After appellant moved in with Click, Wilkerson hired him to do odd jobs around her house because he was unemployed. The two became friends, and Wilkerson referred to appellant as “Trey.” Appellant went to her house when he and Click would argue, which was daily. Toward the end of October and the first part of November, appellant house-sat for Wilkerson while she was out of town for several days. Wilkerson extended the offer to appellant because she was concerned about appellant and Click fighting, and she thought it would give them an opportunity to separate from each other. When Wilkerson returned home, appellant’s suitcase was sitting in the living room. Appellant told Wilkerson that Click had packed his things and brought them over. Wilkerson understood this to mean that Click had packed appellant’s suitcase in an effort to kick him out. Appellant, however, returned to Click’s house and continued to live with her. According to Wilkerson, appellant and Click fought daily in November.

Wilkerson described a conversation that she had with appellant in the middle of November in which he expressed his anger with Click. Appellant told Wilkerson about missing a job interview with an electric company that he had been very excited about. Click refused to drive him to the interview, saying that “she just didn’t feel like it.” Wilkerson knew that appellant could not drive himself because Click refused to let appellant, who did not have a driver’s license, borrow her car. Around the same time, appellant told Wilkerson that he thought about harming Click:

[Wilkerson:] I know [appellant] had said they were underpinning her house, and he had gotten upset . . . . And they had gotten into a huge fight, and she was yelling at him, and he just made an offhand comment, “I can’t believe she handed me that hammer.” He said, “Because all I could think about was hitting her in the head with it.” And I said, “Trey,” and he goes, “Well, I couldn’t do it.” He said, “If I shoved her under there, she would have just started stinking.”

Tracy Beatty v State of Texas 2009 (conviction and sentence affirmed)
Man on Death Row for Mother’s Slaying Loses Appeal
Tracy Lane Beatty v William Stephens 2014 denied COA (certificate of appealability)
Murderpedia: Tracy Lane Beatty
Tracy Lane Beatty – Texas Death Row
Pen Pal request

Movies/Documentaries
The Mind of a Murderer: Bad to the Bone

INMATE INFORMATION

TracyBeatty

SID Number: 02579594
TDCJ Number: 00999484
Name: BEATTY,TRACY
Race: W
Gender: M
DOB: 1961-01-23
Maximum Sentence Date: DEATH ROW
Current Facility: POLUNSKY
Projected Release Date: DEATH ROW
Parole Eligibility Date: DEATH ROW

Offense History:
Offense Date: 2003-11-25
Offense: CAPITAL MURDER (DEATH)
Sentence Date: 2004-08-10
County: SMITH
Case No.: 241-0978-04
Sentence (YY-MM-DD) death


↧

Psycho For Love: Christopher Michael Skaggs charged with killing his wife, Jordan Skaggs

March 23, 2015, 2:30 pm
↧
Search

Murder In The Family: 10-year-old Joseph Hall shot and killed his father, Jeff Hall, to stop the abuse in his home

March 24, 2015, 1:07 pm
$
0
0
↧
↧

Update: Kenzie Rose LaBuy murder *Adam Joseph Barney pled guilty; Sentencing will be May 13, 2015*

March 25, 2015, 4:07 pm
↧

Parents Gone Wild! Deasia Watkins charged with beheading her 3-month-old daughter, Janiyah

March 26, 2015, 1:37 am
$
0
0
↧

Parents Gone Wild! Mitchelle Blair charged with several counts of child abuse; Murder charges for the deaths of Stephen Berry & Stoni Blair (both found in freezer) have not been filed yet

March 27, 2015, 1:45 pm
$
0
0
↧

Psycho For Love: Willard Purcell killed his wife, Barbara Purcell, sentenced to 20 years to life in prison

March 27, 2015, 2:36 pm
$
0
0

Barbara PurcellFrom Willard Purcell’s appeal: On the morning of June 6, 2001, Winnebago County sheriff’s deputies Ciaccio and Leombruni went to the Purcell residence and knocked on the door, but no one responded. The officers looked through a window and saw a leg at the bottom of a stairwell. The officers noticed that an exterior door leading to the basement was open and a pane of glass in the door was broken. They entered through the open basement door and saw Barbara lying on the basement stairs, with her bloody head at the bottom of the stairs and her feet pointing toward the top. Barbara had no pulse and showed no signs of life. The court admitted photos of Barbara’s body as the officers had found it. The officers searched the house, exterior property, and outbuildings and found no one.

Evidence technicians testified that they took photographs, lifted partial fingerprints from the lower-level entrance to the house, recovered glass fragments and blood samples near Barbara’s body, and cast tire tracks found in a field west of the home. The technicians also collected two flashlights, one from the home’s living room coffee table and one from the glove compartment of defendant’s pickup truck. One of defendant’s keys fit the doors to the house.

Debra Foss, the Purcells’ cleaning lady, testified that she last cleaned the home on June 1, 2001. Foss entered using the keypad outside the garage door, and the code had not changed since she began working for the Purcells. Police photos taken of the crime scene indicated that a dresser and a jewelry box in the southeast bedroom were open and “dismantled,” and Foss testified that they were closed when she left the house on June 1. Also, a photo of the living room coffee table’s glass-topped display case showed that it was empty, and Foss testified that the coffee table formerly contained a collection of old coins and currency. A deputy searched defendant’s pickup truck the day after Barbara was discovered, and he found a gold hoop earring, other women’s jewelry, and a plastic garbage bag containing what appeared to be collectible coins and currency.

While executing a warrant to search defendant’s home computer, two other deputies inadvertently found a hidden life insurance policy issued by Barbara’s employer, which named defendant as an 80% beneficiary if Barbara died from an accident. As of the time of trial, no claim had been made on the policy.

Eugenia Blosser lived two doors down from the Purcells. Blosser testified that June 5, 2001, was a normal workday for which she awoke at 3:15 a.m. At 4 a.m., Blosser took her dogs outside and saw a man standing behind defendant’s parked truck. Blosser was “pretty sure” the man was defendant. Blosser and defendant exchanged “good mornings,” and Blosser went back inside. When Blosser left for work 5 to 10 minutes later, defendant and his truck were gone, but lights were on outside the Purcell residence, which was unusual for that time of morning. The next day, Blosser drove past the Purcell home on her way to work and saw the interior lights on, which was also unusual.

Mitch Neiber worked with defendant at a jobsite in Naperville around the time of Barbara’s death in Rockford. Neiber did not notice defendant having any problems with his hands, arms, or legs on June 5 or June 6. Another coworker, Dan McFeely, testified that on June 5, 2001, defendant left for the day at 12:30 p.m. after complaining of a headache and feeling unwell. A sandwich shop employee testified that she sold defendant a hot dog and ice cream between 1 and 3 p.m. on June 5, in Rockford.

Deputy Vincent Linberg testified that he spoke to Tom Vaccaro at noon on June 6, 2001, which was a few hours after Barbara’s body was discovered. During their conversation, defendant called Vaccaro’s mobile phone. On August 22, 2001, Vaccaro testified before the grand jury that indicted defendant for Barbara’s murder, and the trial court admitted portions of Vaccaro’s testimony. At the time of his testimony, Vaccaro was 73 years old and lived next door to the Purcells. Vaccaro knew that the Purcells had a motion detector that activated exterior lights on their house. Defendant had complained about his marriage “for years” but tried to keep the marriage together. The day after defendant was served with the order of protection, Vaccaro saw defendant’s truck parked behind one of the outbuildings on Vaccaro’s property. Vaccaro walked onto the Purcells’ property and saw the basement door partially open. Vaccaro called for defendant but received no response. Vaccaro walked back toward his own property, and defendant walked up behind him. Vaccaro said, “Damn it, Will, what in the hell are you doing over here? You know you don’t belong over here.” Defendant replied, “I got what I came for, [a] carton of cigarettes.” On either that afternoon or the next day, defendant asked to borrow Vaccaro’s car to follow Barbara home from work. Vacarro died in May 2003, during the lengthy pretrial period.

Deputy Tom Murphy testified that he spotted defendant driving at 2:39 p.m. on the day Barbara’s body was discovered. Deputy Murphy stopped defendant and asked him to exit the car. While being patted down, defendant asked, “What did my wife do to me this time?” When two other officers arrived, defendant asked, “What did that bitch say now?” The officers told defendant that he was under arrest for violating an order of protection.

At the police station, defendant received his Miranda warnings and agreed to speak with the officers. They asked him to account for his actions following the issuance of the order of protection. Defendant stated that, after he was released on bond on June 1, he and his brother went to defendant’s home to retrieve defendant’s truck. Defendant admitted that he might have driven past the home once or twice over the next two days to see whether the lawn needed mowing. Defendant stated that, at about 11 a.m. on June 4, he drove to Vaccaro’s house, parked in his driveway, walked to the Purcell residence, and retrieved some tools and some of his wife’s jewelry. Defendant admitted to borrowing Vaccaro’s car to follow Barbara. Defendant returned to his brother’s house, where he remained for the rest of the day. Defendant initially stated that, on June 5, he left his brother’s home at 3:30 a.m. and drove to a work site in Naperville, where he worked until 3:30 or 4 p.m. Defendant later admitted encountering Blosser outside the Purcell residence at about 4 a.m. that morning. Defendant returned to his brother’s house at 5:30 p.m. and did not say what else he did that day.

Defendant did not appear angry or upset when the officers told him that Barbara had been found dead at the bottom of the basement stairs in their home. Defendant did not ask any questions and denied any involvement. Approximately one week later, defendant agreed to another interview, during which he said, “it was an accident.”

dvawareness3Forensic pathologist Dr. Larry Blum testified that his autopsy of Barbara disclosed that her death was caused by trauma due to several blunt-force head injuries, including a basal skull fracture. After examining the Purcells’ staircase, Blum opined that the injuries could not have been caused by an accidental fall. Blum described the injuries as depicted in several graphic autopsy photographs, which were admitted. The lacerations on the top of Barbara’s head were not caused by a fist, but could have been caused by a heavy flashlight. Barbara had no alcohol or illegal drugs in her system, and she did not suffer any significant natural disease at the time of her death. Barbara had contusions on her legs, hip, and arms and a fresh abrasion on her right knee. Blum found fresh lacerations on Barbara’s right hand, and her right index finger exhibited a linear blood blister likely caused by a hard pinch. The small bones at the tips of two fingers were crushed. Blum testified that Barbara likely lived in an unconscious state for “perhaps several minutes” after receiving her fatal injuries. The State’s dental expert opined that defendant likely bit Barbara’s hand, causing swelling and a “C-shaped” abrasion. Defendant’s dental expert testified that the abrasion could have been caused by Barbara’s hand striking defendant’s teeth.

Rockford police sergeant Jeffrey Houde, a bloodstain pattern analyzer, testified that Barbara’s head was bent down when she was first struck. According to Sergeant Houde, the blood splatter patterns indicated that Barbara was struck two or three times as she fell down the stairs.

In his own defense, defendant testified that he did not kill Barbara or attack her with a stun gun. Defendant admitted that his 12-year relationship with Barbara began to deteriorate in November 2000. On May 31, 2001, he awoke between 3:30 and 4 a.m. and began to work on the sunroom in his backyard. At about 6:30 a.m., he went inside for coffee when he saw Barbara. She was startled by his appearance and fell to the floor, dropping her purse. When a cellular phone fell out of her purse, defendant asked why she had it, and Barbara responded that it was none of his business. Barbara would not allow defendant to help her to her feet, and she walked to her car and left for work. Several hours later, defendant left to buy cigarettes, and, when he returned, he encountered two police cars in his driveway. The officers arrested defendant for attacking Barbara with a stun gun, but they could not find the stun gun on the premises. Defendant admitted that he was served with an order of protection at the police station.

Defendant also admitted to a June 4, 2001, conversation with Vaccaro outside the marital residence. Vacarro warned defendant that he “was not supposed to be around” the home. Defendant, believing that Barbara would be at work, retrieved some tools and cigarettes from the sunroom. According to defendant, Vaccaro, not defendant, suggested that defendant borrow Vaccaro’s car. Defendant testified that he drove the car for only 25 minutes, and he denied conducting surveillance on Barbara.

Defendant testified that, on June 5, 2001, he left the work site in Naperville at about 1 p.m. and returned to Rockford. At 2 or 3 p.m., defendant wrote a note asking to speak with Barbara, and he placed it under the windshield wiper of Barbara’s car, which was parked at her workplace. After purchasing some hanging flower baskets, defendant drove toward Vaccaro’s home and saw what appeared to be a police car parked near the Purcell residence. Defendant pulled his truck into a field next to his property, and after the car left, defendant pulled into Vaccaro’s driveway. When defendant could not locate Vaccaro, he went to the Purcell residence.

Defendant hung the flower baskets on the deck and looked to see whether Barbara was home. Barbara arrived and told defendant that he was not supposed to be there, but she allowed him inside. Barbara and defendant sat in the living room and discussed the order of protection. Defendant accused Barbara of fabricating the stun gun attack, and she responded, “Well, I got you out of the house.” Barbara did not mention a divorce, but she told defendant that she wanted him away from the house for a while.

According to defendant, Barbara “ranted” about his presence, and both were angry and upset. Defendant went to the kitchen for a drink of water, and when he returned, Barbara “popped out, hit [defendant] on the mouth, [and] hit [defendant] with the flashlight.” Defendant testified that he and Barbara fought over the flashlight and edged toward the basement stairway. Barbara allegedly struck defendant’s mouth repeatedly with the flashlight until defendant grabbed it and struck her “two or three times at the very most.” Barbara slipped on a rug or some shoes that were lying at the top of the stairs. Barbara fell head-first and backwards down the stairs. She did not move, but defendant did not see any blood. Defendant asked whether she was alright, and Barbara told him to leave because she intended to call the police.

Defendant testified that he struck Barbara because he felt he was in danger from the flashlight and her kicking. Defendant took an overnight bag that Barbara had prepared for him and went to his brother’s home. The bag contained clothing, jewelry, papers, and collectible currency and coins. When he left, defendant believed that Barbara was not seriously injured, and he did not summon medical help because he feared punishment for violating the order of protection.

The parties and the trial court conferred over jury instructions and which exhibits should be sent to the jury. The State did not ask to send Vacarro’s grand jury testimony to the jury, but the jury requested it midway through its deliberations. Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court granted the jury’s request. The jury found defendant guilty, the trial court sentenced him to natural life imprisonment, and this timely appeal followed.

Rockford Man Found Guilty of Killing His Wife
The People of the State of Illinos v Willard Purcell 2002 (affirmed)
Purcell Murder Verdict Upheld In Appeal
The People of the State of Illinos v Willard H. Purcell 2006 (affirmed)
The People of the State of Illinos v Willard H. Purcell 2013 (affirmed)

Movies/Documentaries
Forensic Files: Killer Impression

INMATE INFORMATION

WillardPurcell prison mug

R25660 – PURCELL, WILLARD
Parent Institution: MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER
Offender Status: IN CUSTODY
Location: MENARD

PHYSICAL PROFILE
Date of Birth: 08/24/1946
Weight: 191 lbs.
Hair: Salt and Pepper
Sex: Male
Height: 5 ft. 10 in.
Race: White
Eyes: Hazel

MARKS, SCARS, & TATTOOS
NONE RECORDED

ADMISSION / RELEASE / DISCHARGE INFO
Admission Date: 11/20/2003
Last Paroled Date:
Projected Discharge Date: INELIGIBLE

SENTENCING INFORMATION
MITTIMUS: 01CF1783
CLASS: M
COUNT: 1
OFFENSE: MURDER/STRONG PROB KILL/INJURE
CUSTODY DATE: 10/27/2003
SENTENCE: LIFE
COUNTY: WINNEBAGO
SENTENCE DISCHARGED?: NO


↧
↧

Parents Gone Wild! Roy Allen Stephens and Ruby Angeline Stephens charged with the malnutrition and starvation of their 22-day-old daughter, Betsey Kee Stephens

March 27, 2015, 10:15 pm
↧

Psycho For Love: Carl Brown killed girlfriend Judy Burgin when she tried to leave him; He was sentenced to

March 31, 2015, 2:19 pm
$
0
0

Judy BurginFrom Carl Brown’s appeal: Brown and Judy Burgin met in August 1992. By January 1993, Burgin spent most of her time at Brown’s house. Both Brown and Burgin were extensively involved in drugs. Brown had been dealing drugs for some time prior to meeting Burgin, and Burgin was a user of drugs, primarily cocaine and heroin. Burgin occasionally assisted in Brown’s drug-dealing and invested her own money in some of Brown’s heroin deals. Brown controlled access to the drugs, cash proceeds, and Burgin’s personal funds by locking them in a safe.

Brown and Burgin also had a history of domestic violence. Brown hit Burgin on a number of occasions, leaving bruises and cuts on her arms, face and back. On one occasion, her face was swollen, her lip was split and her shirt was torn. Twice Burgin visited her friend Leta Belardi after fighting with Brown, and both times she exhibited signs of physical abuse. Burgin would also visit other friends, including Leah Blue and Willette and Vance Nelson, after her fights with Brown.

Approximately one month before Burgin disappeared, she called her mother in the middle of a fight with Brown, saying that Brown was assaulting her. Burgin’s mother advised her to come home, but Brown grabbed the phone from Burgin and said that nothing was going on.

In early April, Burgin appeared at a 7-11 store on Arctic Boulevard in Anchorage “covered with blood,” shaking and crying. She was carrying a plastic bag with what appeared to be clothes. The clerk, Virgil Brevak, asked if he should call the police, but Burgin said no. Shortly thereafter, Brown walked in the store, took Burgin by the arm, and they walked out. Brevak, who recognized both Brown and Burgin because they regularly came to the store, said this was the last time he saw Burgin.

Burgin told friends and family members that she feared Brown and wished to leave him. In the days preceding Burgin’s disappearance, her drug use contributed to a serious decline in her physical condition.

On the afternoon of April 22 or 23, 1993, Burgin was drinking at O’Toole’s restaurant at the Samovar Inn with two women, Simone Greenway and another woman known only as “Monique.” Both women left Burgin after about forty-five minutes. At one point, Burgin took the bartender, Sheryl Peterson, aside to the bathroom. Burgin showed Peterson bruises and told Peterson she was upset and afraid. Burgin said that she had left Brown, had taken some money, and had a ticket to Hawaii. Burgin continued to drink with other patrons at the bar and later went to one of the rooms to visit with a man who sold scrimshaw knives. When Burgin returned from that visit, she seemed intoxicated and under the influence of some drug. Burgin attempted to serve herself a salad from the waitress station, but Peterson removed her from there and gave Burgin some food. Burgin again expressed fear that Brown was going to hurt her.

Peterson got off work at 7:00 p.m. and called a Checker Cab for Burgin. While Peterson cautioned Burgin to go directly to the airport, Burgin insisted on going to Brown’s residence to pick up belongings. Knowing that Burgin had a large sum of cash on her person and the “business” that Brown was in, Peterson believed that Burgin had stolen either money or drugs from Brown. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Peterson put Burgin in the cab, heading for Brown’s residence.

On April 24, Burgin called her friend Simone Greenway at approximately 11:30 a.m. and spoke for twelve minutes; phone records showed that Burgin called from Brown’s house. Burgin agreed to come to Greenway’s residence in Big Lake the following day to help take care of Greenway’s children because Greenway was scheduled to have wrist surgery on April 26. Burgin never showed up at Greenway’s residence.

dvawareness3When Burgin did not arrive, Greenway made several calls to Burgin’s friends and family, including calls to Brown, to determine Burgin’s whereabouts. Brown told Greenway that Burgin took off while he was in the shower and that she had “just vanished” with no explanation and he had no idea where she had gone. Burgin’s mother began making calls to friends and to jails and hospitals, but could find no trace of her daughter. At no time did Brown offer to help find Burgin.

Shortly after Burgin’s disappearance, Brown changed the carpet in his bedroom from a red-toned multicolored shag to a gray pile. Brown’s sons helped move furniture, rip up the old carpet and carry the carpet out of the house. According to friends and Brown’s sons, Brown changed the carpet because it was old, ugly, worn, torn, or stank and was stained because the pets had urinated on it. When Brown was later interviewed by the state troopers, Brown did not say that he changed the carpet or the pad due to heavy use, wear and tear, or pet urination.

Sometime during the summer of 1993, Brown, Theodore (“Tee”) Flack, and Leah Blue, friends of Burgin and Brown, drove to Portage. During the ride, Brown scared Blue by complaining that she was too nosy and asking too many questions about Burgin, and by commenting how people can have a way of disappearing. Both Brown and Flack told Blue not to speak to Greenway about Burgin, because Greenway was asking too many questions about Burgin’s disappearance. Flack had also previously warned Blue not to go over to Brown’s house because she might end up like Burgin.

On August 28, 1993, several bicyclists discovered a body in the woods near Grey’s Creek at mile 81.5 of the Parks Highway. The body was wrapped in sheets and covered with leaves. One of the bicyclists stopped a truck and asked the occupants to call the troopers. Alaska State Trooper Michael Sears was the first to arrive at the scene. Trooper Dallas Massie, who was assigned to investigate the case, arrived approximately an hour later. The body was decomposed and it was apparent that it had been there for awhile.

An autopsy of the body was conducted on August 31 – September 1, 1993, at the state crime laboratory in Anchorage. The remains were identified as Burgin’s by examination of fingerprints. The sheets that were wrapped around Burgin’s head and body were a white or off-white Martex brand with orange stitching at the hem, a type of sheet used at the Sheraton hotel in Anchorage in the early- to mid-1980s. Brown worked at the Sheraton Hotel in the early 1980s. A long strand of red shag carpet fiber was found between the sheets.

The medical examiner determined that Burgin died as a result of multiple blows to the head by a blunt object that caused numerous fractures, and that her death was a homicide.

Trooper Massie contacted Brown on September 4, 1993. At that time, the discovery of a body at Grey’s Creek was public information, but the identification of the remains as Burgin’s had not been announced. When Trooper Massie interviewed Brown, he introduced himself as an officer from missing persons. Brown inquired if the officers were there to investigate Burgin’s death, even though knowledge of her demise was not yet publicized. That information was not publicly released until September 14, 1993.

On September 9, 1994, the troopers learned that Brown no longer lived in the house that he owned when Burgin disappeared. The troopers obtained permission to search his former house and found two tufts of red shag carpet underneath the newer grey pile carpet in the bedroom to compare with the sample found on Burgin’s body. Analysis of the fibers established that the fiber found with Burgin’s body and the fiber found at Brown’s residence had the same fiber, dye, and dye color patterns. The State’s expert testified that the carpet fragments could have only come from a single sheet of carpet, in a “once in a lifetime” combination of fibers and dye.

In June 1996, Troopers Massie and Jerry Graham re-interviewed Brown. Brown explained how Burgin left and why he thought she left. Brown told the troopers that he and Burgin were very close, that they never fought and that he never hit her. Brown provided theories why Burgin left and discussed why and how he had changed his carpet.

The troopers asked Brown if he knew how Burgin had died. Brown said that he had read in the paper that she had been bludgeoned to death. That information had not been released to the press nor was it in the paper or on television. When the troopers pointed this out, Brown said that he learned this from a brother of a former girlfriend, Russell Evans. Evans testified that he assumed that he learned that Burgin had been bludgeoned from Brown.

The troopers told Brown that they had enough evidence to prove that Burgin died in the bedroom where the carpet was changed. Since Brown had previously stated that other occupants of the house could not have harmed Burgin, the troopers asked who else could have done the killing and Brown said, “Me.”

The grand jury indicted Brown for first-degree murder and one count of tampering with physical evidence.

Carl E. Brown v State of Alaska 2001
Anchorage man tried again for 1993 homicide

Movies/Documentaries
Forensic Files: Northern Exposure (Also known as Cause of Death)

INMATE INFORMATION

Carl Brown

Offender Name: CARL E BROWN
Offender ID:66096
Date of Birth:10/18/1951
Age: 63
Race: African American
Gender: Male
Custody Status: In Custody
Location of Offender:Spring Creek Correctional Center

Scheduled Release Date: 10/11/2054


↧
Search

Murder In The Family: Rodger Allen Gran killed his mother, Lynnea Gran, using a hammer; He was sentenced to 15 years in prison

March 31, 2015, 3:20 pm
$
0
0

dvawareness3

Lynnae Gran
Lynnae Gran

Superior man charged in 1986 death of his mother
New lab tests lead to confession, prison in ’86 slaying
After 20 years, son’s guilt established
Man who killed mom gets 15-years in jail
Man gets prison time for killing his mother

Movies/Documentaries
Forensic Files: Fresh Heir (also named Cause of Death)

INMATE INFORMATION

RodgerGran prison mug

Name: GRAN, RODGER
DOC #: 00256998
Birth Year: 1968
Age: 46
Height: 5′ 7″
Weight: 187
Race: WHITE
Hair Color: BROWN
Eye Color: BLUE
Sex: MALE
Photo Date: 04/29/2014

Status: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
Institution:
Region Unit Office: Unit 506
Region Unit Agent: 5 06 27
1310 14th ST
Suite 260
Superior, WI 54880
(715) 392-7915
Maximum Discharge Date: 07/30/2020
Mandatory Release/Extended Supervision Date: 07/30/2015
Parole Eligibility Date:

Residence *

Address Reported
SUPERIOR, WI, 54880, County of DOUGLAS 06/25/2014
* Please Note: Municipality listed may pertain to an offender’s
postal address and may not necessarily be the offender’s actual municipality of residence.

Court Cases
Case # County Statute # Convicted
05CF242 DOUGLAS 940.02(1) 07/21/2006
92CR791 DOUGLAS 943.01 , 943.14 , 943.20(1)(A) 02/16/1993
93CF474 DOUGLAS 943.10(1)(A) , 943.12 08/13/1993


↧

Deadly Wives: Donna Arnold got her boyfriend, Carl Stuffel, to kill her husband, Robert Daniel Arnold

March 31, 2015, 4:34 pm
$
0
0

dvawareness3From Donna Arnold’s appeal: The principal perpetrator of the murder, Carl Stuffel, pled guilty to second degree murder. Stuffel testified that he was a drug addict and habitual criminal. He began taking drugs when he was ten years old. He has engaged in numerous larcenies and has been convicted of conspiracy to break and enter and felonious possession of a handgun. The deceased, Robert Daniel Arnold (Dan), first met Stuffel on Valentines Day 1984 at the Valley Style Shop in Raleigh where Stuffel worked as a barber. Stuffel had learned his trade in prison from which he recently had been released. Stuffel cut Dan’s hair and later joined him for dinner. Upon Dan’s invitation, Stuffel joined him for that night at a cheap motel where they engaged in a homosexual relationship. In the following weeks, Dan stopped by the shop from time to time to talk to Stuffel, but Stuffel testified that he and Dan did not engage in further homosexual acts. At this time, Stuffel was twenty-two years old and Dan was in his early thirties.

Dan later brought his wife (the defendant) and their two children from their home in Clinton, North Carolina to meet Stuffel in Raleigh. In April 1984, Dan invited Stuffel to Easter Services at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Clinton where Dan acted as Minister of Music. Shortly thereafter, at the end of April, Stuffel moved into the Arnold’s house which was close to the church. The defendant testified that she opposed this move because Stuffel was a criminal and a drug addict, and she did not want him in the house with her two little girls. However, at Dan’s insistence, she acquiesced in his purported desire to help Stuffel overcome drugs.

A few days before Stuffel joined them, Dan also expressed his desire that the defendant allow herself to be impregnated by Stuffel. Although her initial refusal brought forth Dan’s anger and tears, he later agreed to drop the idea. Stuffel testified that the defendant agreed to have a child by him, but that Dan later changed his mind.

On the day that Stuffel moved in with the Arnolds, the defendant confronted Dan with the canceled check with which Dan had paid for the motel room earlier shared with Stuffel. At that time Dan lied to his wife about it, but the next day he gave her a letter in which he not only divulged the details of his relationship with Stuffel, but he also informed her that he had been a homosexual since childhood. He finally admitted to having male lovers wherever they had lived, including Clinton. The defendant testified that she was stunned by these revelations, but she eventually decided that her relationship with Dan was worth working on.

The next day Stuffel began a sexual relationship with the defendant. Stuffel testified that it was voluntary and that they engaged in sexual intercourse about every other day for the next few weeks. The defendant testified that he coerced her to have sexual intercourse three times by threatening to tell the community about Dan’s bisexuality and by insinuating threats against her children. The defendant’s statements to the police about the nature of her relationship with Stuffel lend themselves to varying interpretations.

The Arnold household deteriorated such that by May 22, 1984 Dan threw Stuffel out, resulting in an angry confrontation. Stuffel went to Raleigh, but by early June he returned to the Arnolds seeking assistance since he was ill from drug abuse. They took him into their house again briefly, and then at his request committed him to Dorothea Dix Hospital for a month to detoxify. The Arnolds visited Stuffel at Dix together several times a week. Stuffel’s therapist at Dix observed that both the Arnolds were frequently engaged with Stuffel in physical contact which he described as a “sexual feeling type of thing.” Since their behavior was so inappropriate as to be distracting to other patients, Stuffel’s therapist asked them to cease their displays of affection.

The Arnolds planned to entertain Stuffel at their home on a weekend pass from Dix, but on the preceding Thursday Dan called Stuffel’s therapist to cancel the plans. Dan told the therapist that the defendant had told him of the sexual relationship between her and Stuffel. Although Dan had been “hysterical, shouting, [and] crying” when calling that night, he called back the next day to say he had changed his mind. Stuffel’s therapist, having learned that Stuffel had homicidal ideations about Dan, had encouraged Dan to terminate the Arnolds’ relationship with Stuffel. Dan had replied that in spite of the fact that his church told him he would lose his position if he did not give up Stuffel, he did not care. He would work elsewhere rather than terminate the relationship. However, Dan soon changed his mind again, and he brought Stuffel’s belongings and car to Dix, telling Stuffel never to return to Clinton. Stuffel was discharged from Dix around July 12, 1984.

Stuffel testified that before his discharge from Dix, he had, at the defendant’s request, asked his friend Jerald Junius Tart (Tart) to murderremembering the victims Dan on July 4, 1984. Although Tart purportedly agreed to do so, he did not carry it through because a police officer had noticed him loitering near the Arnold home.

After his discharge Stuffel resided with Tart. Tart and Stuffel had been friends since their teen years. Together they had engaged in various criminal acts. Stuffel testified that a few days after moving in with Tart, they broke into a scuba diving shop, stealing an assortment of equipment including knives and spear guns. According to Stuffel they intended to murder Dan with spear guns, but after target practice in Tart’s yard they deemed the weapons unsuited to the task. Tart swore that he did not participate in Stuffel’s burglary of the scuba shop, and that he never had any spear guns at his house. However, Tart’s former girl friend testified that Tart and Stuffel visited the scuba shop the day before the burglary, and she saw a spear gun in Tart’s closet.

Stuffel testified that he, Tart and the defendant plotted to kill Dan both before and after Stuffel’s release from Dorothea Dix Hospital. By at least July 17, 1984, Dan apparently also plotted to kill Stuffel. On that day he sent a letter to his friend Bill Poole stating that he would kill Stuffel if he thought he could get away with it. Dan asked his friend to contact various drug dealers on a list drawn up by Stuffel in anticipation of Stuffel’s assistance to the police. Stuffel intended to aid in the prosecution of these drug dealers to gain a more favorable sentence in a pending firearms prosecution against him. Dan hoped the drug dealers would kill Stuffel. Dan concluded: “I want him [Stuffel] dead and I will not rest until he is.” On July 18, while in his church, Dan asked his friend Daniel Staten (Staten) to kill Stuffel. Upon Staten’s refusal, Dan informed him that he intended to contact the drug dealers on Stuffel’s list so that they would kill Stuffel. Staten discouraged Dan from this pursuit telling Dan that he would more likely end up dead himself.

On the evening of July 18, 1984 Dan and the defendant participated in a service at Emmanuel Baptist Church, after which they returned to their home nearby. Michelle Honeycutt (Honeycutt) joined them to receive a piano lesson from the defendant. Honeycutt testified that during the lesson the defendant sought her contact lens materials to soothe her irritated eyes. Upon discovering that she had left her pocketbook, containing the desired materials, at the church, she informed Dan. According to Honeycutt: Dan said he would go back to the church and get her pocketbook, and Donna, she offered first, she said she would go with him, and he said, “no, you say [sic] here and you and Michelle practice,” and then she said, “well, I don’t have to have it tonight, I have some stuff in the bathroom.”

Dan then went to the church by himself anyway. About forty-five minutes later, after making some phone calls trying to locate Dan, the defendant and Honeycutt, with the defendant’s children drove to the church. There they noticed on the ground what appeared to be the crumpled figure of a man. The defendant began screaming and wanted to get out of the car, but Honeycutt, who was driving, immediately put the car in reverse and pulled away not allowing the defendant to exit. They went to a nearby gas station, called the police and then returned to the scene. The police arrived and found Robert Daniel Arnold dead from numerous knife wounds including a slashed throat.
Stuffel testified that he and Tart killed Dan. He stated that he and the defendant were in love and that she asked him to kill Dan because she feared that a divorce would be too hard on the children. He agreed to kill Dan only because he loved the defendant.

Stuffel further testified that he and the defendant agreed that she would leave her pocketbook at her church on the evening of July 18 and then send Dan for it, giving Stuffel an opportunity to attack. On that evening Stuffel and Tart lay in wait in the woods near the church until Dan appeared. Tart first hit Dan with a slap jack, and then Stuffel stabbed Dan in the chest. Tart then finished Dan off by cutting his throat.
Tart testified that prior to July 4, 1984 Stuffel and the defendant asked him to kill Dan, but he decided not to do so. Regarding the July 18 incident, he admitted bringing Stuffel to a shopping center near the Emmanuel Baptist Church, but he remained in the parking lot until Stuffel’s return. Although he claimed not to have known of Stuffel’s murderous intent, he admitted to helping Stuffel dispose of a bloody knife and clothing. Tart testified under a limited grant of immunity which required that he testify in the trial of any other defendants of the Arnold murder.

Stuffel admitted that he first implicated the defendant in the murder only on the morning before his plea bargaining. Stuffel’s plea bargain required that he testify against the defendant. His sentencing was scheduled for after her trial. In addition, Stuffel testified that he hoped his assistance to the State would gain him the privileges of an “honor” prisoner. Furthermore, he stated that while in custody he came to believe that the defendant only used him to kill her husband since he now believes that she was having an affair with someone else at the time. At the defendant’s trial, Stuffel swore that he was finally telling the “whole truth” in spite of the fact that he had lied to the police repeatedly in the preceding months.

The State also produced three xerox copies of love letters purportedly from the defendant to Stuffel. Although none directly implicated the defendant in the murder, they tended to support Stuffel’s story of romance. Tart’s mother purportedly made these copies from originals she found in Stuffel’s belongings. Stuffel later burned the originals. Although no evidence linked Tart’s mother to the murder, she had engaged in various criminal acts with Stuffel and Tart, including chauffeuring them around to burglarize houses.

The defendant produced evidence showing that the Arnold home was visible from the shopping center parking lot from which Stuffel had launched his foray against Dan Arnold, thus giving Stuffel an independent opportunity to discern Dan’s travels from his house to the church. The defendant also testified that she was not forthcoming to the police about the relationships or incidents between Stuffel, Dan and herself because she wished to protect her deceased husband’s reputation in the community. Regarding the xerox copies of the purported love letters, the defendant stated that while the handwriting looked like hers, she had never written letters of that content. A State Bureau of Investigation handwriting analyst concluded that the handwriting could be hers, but could not establish that fact with certainty without viewing the originals. Furthermore, the defendant testified that she had no way of knowing whether Ms. Tart had photocopied original letters or had taken many originals, cut them up and then pasted them together before xeroxing the new compositions. Lastly the defendant produced numerous character witnesses, including Dan’s parents, who testified as to her honesty, generosity, caring and loving nature, her gentleness and peacefulness.

Regarding the murder charge, the trial court instructed the jury that it could (1) acquit the defendant; or (2) find her guilty of first degree murder on an accessory before the fact theory; or (3) find her guilty of second degree murder on an accessory before the fact theory. The second degree murder instruction was made over the defendant’s objection. The trial judge stated that he was submitting the second degree murder charge to the jury to be fair to the defendant since Stuffel had an opportunity to plead guilty to that offense. The defendant did not object to the trial court’s instruction on conspiracy to commit murder.

Upon the defendant’s conviction of second degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, the trial court found one aggravating and five mitigating factors for each offense. On the murder charge he sentenced the defendant to fifteen years, and he added ten more years for the conspiracy charge.

Donna Arnold allowed to return to Virginia pending trial
Donna Arnold did not see murdered husband’s body (part 1)
Trial (part 2)
Carl Stuffel invokes 5th in Arnold murder case
Mrs. Arnold repeats murder denials
Donna Arnold found guilty, gets 25 years
State of North Carolina v Donna Jones Arnold 1990

Movies/Documentaries
Redrum: O Come All Ye UnFaithful

Defendants
Donna Jones Arnold – convicted, sentenced to 25 years in prison, finished parole in 1991
Carl Stuffel – pled guilty, sentenced to life in prison; finished parole in 2011

INMATE INFORMATION

Donna Arnold

DONNA J ARNOLD
Offender Number: 0010497
Inmate Status: INACTIVE
Probation/Parole/Post Release Status: INACTIVE
Gender: FEMALE
Race: WHITE
Ethnic Group: UNKNOWN
Birth Date: 07/19/1952
Age: 62

Most Recent Incarceration Summary

Incarceration Status: INACTIVE
Total Incarceration Term:
Conviction Date:
Projected Release Date: UNAUDITED
Primary Crime:
Primary Crime Type:
Special Characteristics: REGULAR
Current Status: N/A
Admission Date: 03/16/1988
Admitting Location: NC CI WOMEN
Control Status: REGULAR POPULATION
Next Control Review: UNKNOWN
Custody Classification: MEDIUM
Next Custody Review: UNKNOWN
Current Location: UNKNOWN AT CONVERSION
Previous Location: NCCI WOMEN
Last Movement : TERMINATED PAROLE
Last Movement Date: 12/05/1991
Escapes?: N

Sentencing Information:

Donna Arnold sentence info

INMATE INFORMATION

Carl Stuffel

CARL EDWARD STUFFELL
Offender Number: 0394304
Inmate Status: INACTIVE
Probation/Parole/Post Release Status: INACTIVE
Gender: MALE
Race: WHITE
Ethnic Group: UNKNOWN
Birth Date: 12/09/1962
Age: 52

Most Recent Incarceration Summary

Incarceration Status: INACTIVE
Total Incarceration Term: LIFE
Conviction Date: 03/17/1988
Projected Release Date: LIFE
Primary Crime: MURDER SECOND DEGREE (PRINCIPAL)
Primary Crime Type: FELON
Special Characteristics: LIFE
Current Status: N/A
Admission Date: 03/18/1988
Admitting Location: CENTRAL PRISON
Control Status: REGULAR POPULATION
Next Control Review: UNKNOWN
Custody Classification: MINIMUM 3
Next Custody Review: 06/01/2006
Current Location: LOCATION UNKNOWN
Previous Location: BUNCOMBE CC
Last Movement : TERMINATED PAROLE
Last Movement Date: 08/17/2011
Escapes?: N

Sentencing Information:

Carl Stuffel sentence info


↧
↧

Parents Gone Wild! Roy Allen Stephens and Ruby Angeline Stephens charged with the malnutrition and starvation of their 22-day-old daughter, Betsey Kee Stephens

April 2, 2015, 5:04 pm
↧

Psycho For Love: Springboro police officer Jim Barton killed his wife, Vickie Barton; Sentenced to 15-50 years in prison

April 3, 2015, 4:15 pm
$
0
0

dvawareness3

Vickie Barton
Vickie Barton

**Upcoming Parole Hearing**
Thomas James “Jim” Barton has a parole hearing coming up in June. Now is the time to act. If you would like to send in a letter of opposition to his possible parole, there are 3 ways: postal mail, email or fax.

Email addresses:
drc.publicinfo@odrc.state.oh.us
drc.victim.services@odrc.state.oh.us
Fax: (513) 946-3100

Cynthia B. Mausser, Chairperson
Board of Parole Hearings
770 West Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43222

You must include the following information, no matter how you do it: Thomas James Barton, Inmate # A4891414

I will be posting a sample letter if you want to copy it and use.

Former Ohio police officer sentenced in wife’s slaying
Judge Sentences Jim Barton To Prison
Barton case topic of town
Barton’s new wife says he’s innocent
Former Springboro police officer asks court to free him
Scared To Death

Movies/Documentaries
48 Hours: Scared To Death

INMATE INFORMATION

JimBarton prison mug

THOMAS JAMES BARTON
Number: A489414
DOB: 08/15/1955
Gender: Male
Race: White
Admission Date: 03/18/2005
Institution: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Status: INCARCERATED

Parole Board hearing scheduled in June, 2015
Persons wishing to submit a written statement concerning this hearing may send such statement to the Ohio Parole Board, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 770 West Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43222. Please include the offender’s name and number on any correspondence.

Offense Information
INVOL MANSLAUGHTER Counts: 1 ORC: 2903.04 3
Committing County: Warren Admission Date: 03/18/2005 Degree of Felony: A1
AGG BURGLARY Counts: 1 ORC: 2911.11 3
Committing County: Warren Admission Date: 03/18/2005 Degree of Felony: A1

Sentence Information
Indefinite Sentence Min: 15 years
Indefinite Sentence Max: 50 years
Expiration of Max Sentence: 02/02/2055

Parole Hearing Information
Next Parole Board Hearing/Review Month: June, 2015
Latest Parole Board Hearing/Review Type & Results: FIRST HEARING/


↧

Psycho For Love: Jeremy Meyers killed his wife, Jessica Lynn Meyers, so he could be with his new girlfriend

April 4, 2015, 6:57 pm
$
0
0

dvawareness3

Jessica Meyers
Jessica Lynn Meyers

Charges Filed In Bizarre Tacoma Murder
Strange Twist In Soldiers’ Alleged Murder Plot
Two Fort Lewis soldiers convicted in killing of one’s wife
Fort Lewis Soldier Sentenced For Murdering His Wife

Movies/Documentaries
Deadly Sins: Head Games

Defendants
Jeremy Lee Meyers – convicted, sentenced to 42 years in prison
Christopher Ryan Baber – convicted, sentenced to 9 years in prison

Christopher Baber
Christopher Baber

INMATE INFORMATION

Jeremy Meyers

DOC Number: 876700
Offender Name: MEYERS, JEREMY L
Location: Coyote Ridge Corrections Center
1301 N Ephrata Ave
PO Box 769
Connell, WA 99326
(509) 543-5800


↧
Viewing all 1310 articles
Browse latest View live
Search
<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>