Case Category

6 Cases

Main Menu

Location

Defendant(s)

Date of Alleged Crime

Scott Peterson was sentenced to death for the murder of his 8-month pregnant wife, Laci, and his unborn son named Connor.  The prosecution argued that Scott killed Laci late on Dec. 23, 2002 or early on the morning of Dec. 24.  A neighbor saw Scott in the bed of his truck, which was backed in his driveway, around 9:30 a.m.  It was alleged that he was loading Laci’s body into it.  Cell phone records establish that he left his Modesto residence at 523 Covena Ave. around 10:08 a.m. to go to a warehouse at 1027 N. Emerald Ave., where his boat was stored.  The warehouse is about 9 minutes away.

At the warehouse, Scott logged onto his computer at 10:30 a.m. and sent an email reply to his boss.  Scott then assembled a mortiser woodworking tool he had bought.  He later attached his boat to his truck.  Based on estimated travel time, Scott left the warehouse around 11:18 a.m. and traveled 90 miles to the Berkeley Marina.  At the Marina parking lot he bought a ticket that was time stamped 12:54 p.m.  Scott went fishing for a little over an hour and left the Marina about 2:12 p.m.  He got caught in traffic and made a gasoline purchase in Livermore at 3:25 p.m.  Based on travel time from Livermore, he arrived back at the warehouse around 4:26 p.m.  Scott estimated that he arrived home from the warehouse between 4:30 and 4:45 p.m.

On arrival, Scott found his dog McKenzie in his fenced yard with a leash on.  A neighbor later stated that she found McKenzie running loose and put him back in Scott and Laci’s yard.  Scott removed the leash and put it on the patio table.  Although Scott had repeatedly tried to reach Laci from his cell phone during the day, he assumed that she was at her mother’s house.  He put the clothes he was wearing, which were a bit wet, in the washer and got a shower.  He then checked his home phone messages and got a message from the companion of Laci’s mother asking Scott and Laci to bring whipped cream when they came over for a Christmas Eve gathering.  Scott then called Laci’s mother at 5:17 p.m. and confirmed that Laci was missing.

By December 30th, authorities began searching San Francisco Bay near Berkeley Marina, looking for the Laci’s body.  Searches were conducted for 26 days and turned up nothing.  Authorities also discovered that Scott was having an affair with another woman, Amber Frey.  On April 13, 2003, the body of a baby boy was found on the shore of San Francisco Bay.  This boy was later confirmed to be Conner, Scott and Laci’s unborn (or newly born) son   The following day, the body of Laci was also found nearby.  Both bodies were found about 3 miles from Berkeley Marina.  On April 18, Scott was arrested for their murder.

While the location of the found bodies is incriminating, other evidence supports Scott’s innocence.  Six witnesses saw Laci walking her dog, McKenzie, near her home shortly after Scott left on the day of the disappearance.  A home across the street from the Petersons’ was burglarized at 11:30 a.m. that morning.  One witness said she saw Laci confronting the apparent burglars.  The body of another pregnant woman, who disappeared on May 1, had been found across the bay from where Laci was found.  Both of their killers (if different) used the same modus operendi in that they cut off the hands and feet of their victims.  Some have suggested Laci was a victim of a satanic cult killing because May 1 and Dec. 24 are Satanic holidays and the area is home to three Satanic churches.

Conner was found with a plastic cord tied to him, indicating that he was separated from Laci at the time of his entry into San Francisco Bay.  This evidence suggests that Laci was kidnapped alive, went into labor due to the stress of her ordeal, and had given birth to Conner prematurely.

Scott was completely forthcoming about his whereabouts on the day Laci went missing.  One would presume Scott had some intelligence and would not knowingly use as an alibi a place from which he disposed of a victim’s body.  If he lacked intelligence, he was smart enough to avoid leaving any trace evidence at any of the alleged murder scenes.  Nor did he leave any evidence of a clean-up.  All evidence suggests his affair with Amber was just a temporary fling, not a motive for murder.  Laci was prettier than Amber, and Scott had had other flings in the past.  Police had Amber secretly tape her conversations with Scott, to no avail.  In one of the conversations, Scott wondered if Amber had anything to do with Laci's disappearance.

In interviews, jurors said that they convicted Scott for the most obvious reason, namely because the bodies were found near where he went fishing.  One juror added that he never would have convicted Scott, but for this fact.  However, the location of the found bodies is not “the smoking gun,” it was presented to be.  If someone else killed Laci, it is plausible that the alternate killer might dump Laci’s and Connor’s bodies near where Scott had gone fishing as such a location would throw any possible suspicion off of himself and onto Scott.  Scott’s whereabouts on the day Laci went missing were well publicized.  This alternate theory is at least semi-plausible.  A plausible alternative theory alone is ground for reasonable doubt.  Combined with the unlikely lack of evidence corroborating Scott’s guilt, there is ground for reasonable doubt.  Many books were written about the case including a 2005 pro-defense book entitled Presumed Guilty by Matt Dalton, a former Long Beach City and L.A. County prosecutor.  (www.scottisinnocent.com) (www.scottpetersonappeal.org) (CCADP)  [12/07]

George Allen Lewis was convicted of the rape and murder of a 36-year-old neighbor, Karen Gregory.  Gregory lived at the corner of 27 Ave. and Upton St. in Gulfport, FL.  Around 1 a.m. on May 23, 1984, more than a dozen of Gregory’s neighbors heard a loud piercing scream.  Most paid little attention, but on the morning of the 24th Gregory was found raped and brutally murdered.  When interviewed later, Lewis said that upon hearing the scream he walked towards Gregory’s house to investigate, but turned around after he failed to see anything suspicious.  Lewis was a firefighter and a neighborhood crime watch volunteer.  He had a crime watch sign in his yard.  Lewis had a sterling reputation and was friends with the case investigator, Detective Larry Tosi.

When questioned eight months later, Lewis changed his story, saying he just walked to the front of his house and did not walk along the street.  He was then asked to take a lie detector test, which he failed.  After being told that he failed, he changed his story again.  He also gave slightly different stories after two more lie detector tests.  Two years after the murder, investigator Tosi had a crime scene photo of what appeared to be a bloody (barefoot) footprint enlarged and compared to Lewis’ footprint.  The forensic comparers reported a match.  Lewis then admitted it was his footprint and that he entered Gregory’s house following the murder to investigate, but said he did not murder Gregory.

Gregory’s body was found outside a bathroom.  Lewis’ bloody footprint was found inside the bathroom.  At trial Lewis said that after he entered Gregory’s house and came upon the body, he got sick and entered the bathroom to vomit in the toilet.  Afterwards he ran like a scared rabbit.  He said that later, during the investigation, he tried to be helpful, but thought it best not to mention that he walked through the murder scene.  To construct a motive, the prosecution speculated that routine everyday tensions caused Lewis to snap and commit the brutal rape-murder.  Lewis’ family and fellow firefighters, who presumably know him better, strongly maintain his innocence.

Lewis’ case provides reasonable doubt.  It is plausible to believe that Lewis, as a crime watch volunteer, might have entered Gregory’s house to check that everything was fine.  Also as a firefighter, Lewis was trained to enter houses based on what his senses told him.  If he saw smoke billowing from a house's window, he most likely did not wait for social approval before entering.  His job required him to take charge.

Reportedly, there was broken door glass outside Gregory's home, which might have drawn his attention.  Perhaps he heard the sounds of the victim's last moans or of the killer exiting out the rear.  It is plausible that Lewis inadvertently walked into a pool of the victim’s blood before the true horror of the situation dawned on him. Or not wanting to vomit on the floor, he stepped in the victim’s blood while walking over her body to get to the toilet.  Although the real killer could have left a bloody footprint, he likely fled before most of the victim's blood had drained from her body.  There may not have been any pools of blood for him to step in.

Secondly, Lewis had legitimate reason to fear that reporting the crime would a lead to the murder being pinned on him.  He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  It is in the interest of justice that individuals not incriminate themselves if they are innocent.  In extreme cases, it might even be advisable for an innocent person to clean up a crime scene, or even bury a body. Since Lewis was clearly in a incriminating situation, his failure to report the crime cannot be used as evidence of guilt.

Thirdly, rather than implicate him in the crime, Lewis' false stories tend to exonerate him.  Had he planned the crime beforehand, he likely would have snuck up to the victim's house, worn a disguise, or taken some precaution so that a neighbor could not identify him.  Then when questioned later about the crime, he would deny knowing anything about it.  In actual fact, when questioned, Lewis acknowledged walking along the street to investigate the scream.  His acknowledgment implied that he was fearful that a neighbor might have seen him on the street and he did not want to be caught in a lie by denying everything.  Even that acknowledgement he apparently did not want to make.  After talking to Investigator Tosi, and finding out that no neighbor saw him, he changed his story eight months after the crime to say he only walked to the front of his house.  In addition, it does not seem likely that Lewis would have entered Gregory’s house barefoot if he planned to struggle with her.

Fourthly, there was an alternate suspect who stopped by Gregory’s house a half day after her murder and left a note on the car of Gregory’s absent boyfriend, saying he stopped by, but “saw no signs of life.”  When questioned this suspect had a cut on his hand, but reportedly had an alibi.  Lewis will be eligible for parole in 2010.  A 1992 book was written about the case, entitled Unanswered Cries by Thomas French.  (AJ)  [8/08]

While married to a different man, Sharee Miller had an online romance with an ex-police detective, Jerry Cassaday, from Reno, Nevada, whom she met on the Internet.  Sharee had told him numerous lies such as being wealthy.  She had also traveled to Reno five times and had a physical affair.  In her emails, she said she was married to a terminally ill husband, Jeff, who would die soon and that they could be together soon.  Then she told him her husband died, but she had to marry his brother, Bruce, because of family pressure.  She twice told Jerry she was pregnant with his child.

Regarding the first pregnancy, she told Jerry she lost the child because her husband had violently raped her.  Regarding the second pregnancy she said her husband had beaten her until she miscarried.  She even used cosmetic make-up to fake a picture of herself, showing herself all bruised up.  She also sent some emails allegedly from her husband to Jerry saying that he found out about the pregnancy and killed Jerry’s “bastard” child.  Sharee had also told Jerry that her husband was in the Mafia.  Jerry had trouble with drugs and alcohol and moved from Reno, Nevada to his hometown of Odessa, Missouri.

Sharee’s husband, Bruce Miller, 48, worked third shift at an auto plant in Flint.  He also owned a junkyard, B & D Auto Parts, where he worked when he was not working at the plant.  One night while Bruce was alone at the junkyard, Jerry showed up and murdered him.  Police thought Bruce was the victim of a robbery as money he had on him was missing.  In her online romance with Jerry, Sharee still was not willing to join Jerry, even though she was free of her husband.  In apparent despair, Jerry, then 39, committed suicide three months after the murder.  He left a suicide note and an alleged transcript of instant messages between himself and Sharee that implicated Sharee in the murder.  He said he had murdered Bruce with Sharee’s help.

Despite her infidelity, Sharee was reportedly happy in her marriage to Bruce.  He was her third husband and provided stability that she had not had before.  She also had no known motive to kill him.  She did not even have a small life insurance policy on him.  Police found email correspondence on Jerry’s computer between Sharee and Jerry.  There was nothing in these emails that directly implicated Sharee in the murder.  They somewhat supported Sharee’s claim that she was trying to scare Jerry, so he would not call her house so much.

Sharee was tried for the murder of her husband.  Jerry’s suicide note and his transcript of instant messages, which showed Sharee participating in the planning the murder, were introduced as evidence.  The transcripts could easily have been faked.  Because he had been jilted, Jerry had motive to falsely implicate Sharee in the murder.  There was little reason to regard them as reliable or trustworthy.  Being dead, Jerry could not be cross-examined.  Jerry was also an ex-police detective who likely was more adept than an average person in deciding how to frame an innocent person.

Sharee was convicted.  Her infidelity and the lies she told to Jerry do not make her an especially sympathetic person.  Nevertheless, since the evidence used to convict her is inherently unreliable, Sharee’s conviction is also inherently unreliable.  (AJ) [9/07]

William Allison MacFarland, also known as “Bill,” took cyanide home from the plant where he worked.  He used it to make a solution of the poison for his wife, who had used it to clean her jewelry and silverware. Bill explained he had taken an almost empty bromide bottle and poured the contents into another bromide bottle, which was almost full. He then funneled the poison solution into the now empty bromide bottle. To avoid any possible confusion, he affixed a poison label on the bromide bottle containing the cyanide. Bill then placed both bottles on a bathroom shelf.

Ten days later he took an overnight trip to New York with his 6-year-old son.  When he returned, his wife was dead from cyanide poisoning.  The couple’s two-year-old daughter was with her, playing with toys on the floor.  It was Bill's contention that despite his precautions, his wife must have had a headache and, from force of habit, grabbed the familiar bromide bottle without looking at the label. In this way, she took the deadly poison. Bill dismissed suicide as a theory.  It was clear that Bill had no hand in his wife’s death as he was in New York.

In the course of their investigation, police discovered that Bill was having an affair with a former secretary, Flo Bromley, who lived in Philadelphia.  Armed with a motive, police came up with a new theory of how the murder could have taken place.  If, after showing the poison bottle to his wife, Bill had switched the poison label, his wife would have consumed the contents of the now deadly unmarked bottle. When he discovered the body the next morning, Bill could have removed the poison label and returned it to the correct bottle.

Bill was arrested and charged with the murder of his wife.  It was revealed that Flo had threatened to expose Bill to his employers if he did not divorce his wife and marry her by October.  It was further disclosed that Bill's home life was not as harmonious as he had led investigators to believe. His wife knew of his affair with Flo and did not like it one bit.  However, it was impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bill had intentionally switched labels in order to poison his wife.

Bill's lawyers expanded on this flaw in the prosecution's case.  They explained, Bill’s wife had been duly warned of the danger by her husband, and if she died as a result of ingesting poison, in no way has murder been committed.  Despite this argument, the jury, after deliberating all night, found Bill guilty of murder in the first degree. He was sentenced to die in the electric chair.

During the trial, prosecutors had given the jury love letters between Bill and Flo to read during the trial.  Bill was granted a new trial because his defense was not given the opportunity to explain and interpret these letters.  The retrial jury felt there was reasonable doubt and acquitted Bill.  (Toronto Sun)

Dowling was sentenced to death for the murder of 44-year-old Jennifer Lynn Myers.  Myers had been robbed at her frame shop and art gallery 14 months prior to her murder.  At the time of the robbery, Dowling was a General Manager for a restaurant company.  To attend training he had driven past the scene of the robbery 45 minutes before it occurred, and again 15 minutes after it occurred.  Myers said the assailant wore a dark cap and aviator style sunglasses.  Myers also said the assailant was left-handed and had a military or police demeanor.  The assailant told her that he had just gotten out of prison and did not want to go back.  Dowling is right-handed, had no military or police training, had no prior convictions, had never been imprisoned, and did not own any clothing that matched the assailant's.  He was also 10 years younger, 5 inches taller, and 20 pounds heavier than Myers' description of her assailant.  However, he did have a pair of aviator style sunglasses at his home.

Four months after the robbery, Myers identified Dowling as her assailant.  The day before Dowling's arrest, Myers suddenly remembered she had been sexually assaulted as well as robbed.  Following the robbery, the assailant reportedly crossed a road right in front of a police car and got into his car.  Although an Officer Haines would later testify that he looked right at the purported assailant, he could not identify Dowling as the man he saw, nor his car.  An elderly couple also saw the purported assailant.  After undergoing hypnosis, they would later identify Dowling and his car.

Eight months after Dowling's arrest, while he was out on bail, Myers was shot to death at a her new framing gallery miles away from her previous shop.  Her murder occurred only two weeks before Dowling's trial was set to begin.  Dowling was re-arrested and accused of killing Myers to prevent her testimony.  Following the murder, Dowling twice filed motions to dismiss the robbery case against him on the grounds that he would not be able to cross-examine his accuser.  The trial judge delayed ruling on the motions, giving police and prosecutors two months to meet with other witnesses and coach new statements from them about what Myers allegedly told them.  These statements were ruled admissible as "excited utterance" exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Following Dowling's robbery conviction, the prosecution then used this conviction to argue motive for the murder, and following his murder conviction, they used it to as an aggravating factor to justify Dowling's death sentence.

In 2001, three years after his convictions, Dowling got photocopies of two boxes of withheld discovery material from both of his trials.  In it was proof that the prosecutor coached and tampered with witnesses in both trials.  It also contained proof that Dowling's alibi for the murder had been verified a week after his arrest.  Police verified that Dowling had been in Harrisburg at the time of the murder.

There are other suspects in the murder.  Myers had been shot with a .357 caliber gun, a weapon that her husband owned.  Lab tests matching the husband's gun to the crime scene bullets were purportedly inconclusive.  The defense has not been allowed to have its own expert make an independent determination.

The only hard evidence against Dowling is the timing of Myers murder, two weeks before Dowling's robbery trial.  If one ignores exculpatory facts, this evidence would presumably be sufficient to convict, as it is highly unlikely that a complete stranger would happen to murder Myers shortly before Dowling's trial.  However, some facts raise reasonable doubt:  (1) If Myers' husband or someone she knew wanted to murder her, the date of her murder was an excellent time to do so and throw suspicion on someone else.  (2) It is rare that robbery defendants murder their accusers.  While it is a possible motive, it is hardly a compelling one.  A spouse or an aggrieved acquaintance may have a more compelling motive.  (3) Dowling had no prior convictions and his conviction for robbing Myers is simply not believable.  Before convicting him of murder, one would prefer to see some direct evidence against him, or evidence sufficient to rule out alternative suspects.  (4) Dowling has an alibi in Harrisburg, which, unless disproven, has to be taken at face value.

Legally, if Dowling gets exonerated of his wrongful robbery conviction, his murder conviction would have to be overturned.  In retrying Dowling for murder, legal rules against unfair prejudice might inhibit of prevent the state from introducing Dowling's arrest for robbery.  If so, the state might be unable to establish motive, upon which its case relies.  Even if the state develops sufficient evidence against Dowling, he could not be guilty of first-degree murder as Myers intended to do him serious harm with her false or careless testimony.  In 2007, Governor Ed Rendell signed a death warrant for Dowling.  Dowling's execution has since been stayed.  (IIPPI)  [6/08]

Indle Gifford King, Jr. was convicted of murdering his 20-year-old mail order bride, Anastasia Solovieva, who was from Krygyzstan in the former Soviet Union.  King had met Anastasia through a magazine that advertised foreign women to prospective American men.  A boarder, Daniel Larson, who rented a room in King’s house, led police to her shallow grave.  At the time Larson had been arrested for sexually assaulting a Ukrainian immigrant teenager.  Larson said King had told him he murdered Anastasia and showed him where he buried her body.  Larson later claimed he murdered King’s wife under orders from King.  King had no criminal record while Larson had a history of violence, sexual assault, and mental illness.  In addition, Larson wrote a letter to a cult leader, Christopher Turgeon, in which he stated that he killed Anastasia alone.

The state had no evidence of motive on King’s part.  They made extreme assertions of jealousy on King’s part, but they were just assertions.  Evidence indicated that King allowed Anastasia to live a separate life.  King was happy to spend some quality time with her, which Anastasia willingly agreed to.  King had married a previous mail-order bride who left him after getting a green card, so there was no reason for him to be surprised if his trophy wife showed signs of straying from her marriage.

At the time of his wife’s disappearance, the couple had just returned from Krygyzstan.  King said he went out shopping, but when he returned, Larson told him she had left him.  King said the idea that she was murdered never crossed his mind.  When Anastasia was reported missing by her parents, King falsely told police she had left him during a stopover in Moscow.  He said he told that statement because he was embarrassed that she left him.  At trial, King testified on his own behalf and hurt his case by discrepancies in his testimony.

The only evidence of guilt the prosecution offered was Larson’s self-serving and changed testimony.  Larson’s past record as a predator and his knowledge of where Anastasia was buried makes it reasonable to believe that Larson may have killed Anastasia by himself.  Such a hypothesis creates reasonable doubt for King.  At trial, the prosecution focused on King’s discrepant statements as though the burden of proof was on him to prove himself innocent.  King’s false statements raise suspicion, but prove nothing since even innocent defendants will sometimes lie in an attempt to avoid conviction or for other unknown reasons.  (AJ)  [9/07]