Posts Tagged ‘ victim’s rights ’

Victim of Oregon serial killer Dayton Leroy Rogers finally laid to rest after 26 years

Full article and slide show here.

As her thoughts turned to renewal and hope each spring, Cherrie Letter would call the funeral home to ask about the murdered prostitute. For 26 years the answer remained the same. The young woman’s family never claimed her ashes. They languished in a simple urn stored on a shelf.

But Letter couldn’t forget Jennifer Lisa Smith. The two were forever connected by what happened one night in 1987.

That Friday in August, Smith’s screams brought Letter running out the door of an Oak Grove restaurant where she was talking with a friend. Letter saw the 25-year-old Smith lying naked in the parking lot — the final victim of Oregon’s most prolific serial killer Dayton Leroy Rogers.

Letter knelt beside the bleeding woman, trying to stanch the flow from the wicked stab wounds, telling her to hang on until help arrived. But Smith died at the hospital.

The killer had taken off in his truck, chased by a man in a car. Rogers raced through Milwaukie and Gladstone at speeds up to 100 mph. But the man was able to note the license plate to the pickup and deputies arrested Rogers that afternoon. A fingerprint matching Smith’s right ring finger was found on the outside of the truck’s passenger door. The case led to Rogers’ conviction and he’s now in the Oregon State Penitentiary.

Letter, 32 at the time, learned that Smith’s body went to Finley-Sunset Hills Mortuary off of U.S. 26. She sent flowers and a card to the funeral home for Smith’s family.

“I expressed my sorrow,” she recalled. “I wanted her family to know that she was a brave woman who fought for her life. I wanted them to be comforted to know that she wasn’t alone. I was there with her.”

Smith’s family never replied.

“After six months I called the funeral home,” Letter said. “The card and flowers hadn’t been picked up. Her ashes were still there.”

When she checked again six months later, no change.

“All of that made me to not want Jenny to be forgotten,” Letter said. “So I started calling the funeral home each year with the sense of hope that her family picked up the ashes. I prayed for Jenny and her family.”

Each year, the same call.

And each year, the same answer.

“I felt such profound sadness,” Letter said. “No one cared.”

But she did.

***

A month ago, in late February, it was time to call again. The ritual had become her way — like the way some people light a candle in a church — to honor Smith’s memory. Long ago, Letter had realized the similarities between their two lives.

Now 58, Letter had once worked for the Portland Police Bureau’s vice squad. She was 19 and earned college class credit and a bit of money to pose as a hooker to help cops arrest customers who trolled for women like Smith, known on the streets as Gypsy Roselyn Costello. Letter knew that no girl decides to grow up and be a prostitute. Smith had been forced to make some terrible choices to survive.

And in 1983, when Letter was in her late 20s, a man broke into her Southeast Portland home and sexually assaulted her. When she managed to escape, the intruder — later caught and convicted — chased her down, stabbed her five times and beat her in a parking lot, breaking her collarbone and smashing her head onto the pavement.

This year, Letter made the call with a sense of urgency. Cancerous tumors have spread through her body. While doctors plot a course of action, Letter — divorced with a daughter and granddaughter and living near Lincoln City — feels time is precious.

“The clock is ticking and I’m not sure how many ticks I have left,” she said. “Her own people never came to get her. When I go, everyone will have forgotten about Jenny.”

Letter said she started to recount her tale to the funeral home receptionist and was transferred to Evone Manzella, the mortuary manager hired six months earlier after moving from California.

“The call seemed strange,” Manzella said. “It was almost hard to believe the story. But there was something in her voice that touched me.”

Before getting into the funeral industry, Manzella had worked as a 9-1-1 dispatcher in Northern California. One call in particular haunts her.
“A young woman was being attacked and got away to call for help,” she said. “I took it. She was on the phone with me when the attacker chased her down. I heard her die.”

Manzella took Letter’s telephone number and said she’d get back to her.

After checking the Internet to verify Letter’s account of Smith’s murder, Manzella found a ledger book in the mortuary’s office safe. She flipped through the pages and found Smith’s name. Her unclaimed cremated remains had been at the home longer than anyone on record.

A file showed that in 1987 Smith’s parents had paid to have the mortuary take care of their daughter’s body. When they didn’t pick up the remains, the funeral home left phone messages and sent certified mail. They never responded. At a certain point, the mortuary decided to wait for them to come forward.

Manzella was moved by what she found out.

“I’m a mom,” she said. “I would hope that no child is ever forgotten.”

She was also impressed with Letter.

“Here’s this woman who has been carrying this burden for so long,” she said. “The right thing was to do something for both of these women.”

Manzella took the story and the records to the funeral home managers. Her bosses were amazed that someone who wasn’t a family member had cared for so long. They donated a niche in the ornate mausoleum and provided a bronze faceplate engraved with Smith’s name, birthday and the day she died.

When the paperwork had been completed, Manzella called Letter. They planned a memorial service for a day last week. Letter said she’d be there, along with two members of the clergy she asked to say a few words.

But about 15 minutes before the service, the receptionist told Manzella that Letter had called to say that one of her tumors had put pressure on her adrenal gland, causing her blood pressure to skyrocket and her heart to race. As a precaution, doctors wanted her spend the night in the hospital.

Three days later, when Letter felt better, the funeral home held a second memorial.
As services go, it was the smallest in the funeral home’s history: Letter, Manzella and a couple employees, one of whom would screw the faceplate over the niche.

Standing before the wall where Smith’s remains would be laid to rest, Letter reached into her purse and pulled out a small piece of blood amber in the shape of a heart that she found at the beach more than 25 years ago. She opened the urn’s lid, set the amber inside and closed it again.

“This,” she said, “goes with her.”

After the urn was placed in the niche and the faceplate solid, Letter walked to her car and pulled out 25 white helium-filled balloons.

Each one represented a year in Smith’s life.

She let them loose.

“Fly, Jenny,” she said. “Fly.”

— Tom Hallman Jr.

By Tom Hallman Jr., The Oregonian

R.I.P. Jennifer

R.I.P. Jennifer

Crime Library article on Rogers

This article made me tear up. How beautiful and inspiring. The people who work for the mortuary are outstanding and Ms. Letter is amazing.

Killer Michael Keith Moon Released

 

 

 

Michael Keith Moon, “is a cold calculated killer,” says  Det. Chuck Gaynor.

Moon, 63, has been released from Donovan Prison and has been living in a half way house in downtown San Diego, reports CBS 8 News.

“It is appropriate for the public to be aware of the fact there are people like Michael Moon out there, and these people pose a risk to society,” said Gaylor.

Moon was raised in San Diego and his story is far from being an upstanding citizen.  He was convicted of killing Rhonda Salazar in Reno in 1978.  He plead guilty and was sentenced to life in prison with parole and was released in 1990.  
Moon barely managed to stay out of trouble for a year, before he attacked an elderly man in Woodstock, Illinois in 1991.  Moon probably would have killed him, if a passing citizen had not stopped him.  Moon was charged with attempted murder and was released in 2000.  Moon’s parole was revoked and was sent back to prison until 2005.

In 2007, Moon was arrested for the the 1977 murder of Liborio Lindin, a migrant worker who he beat to death in a garage at a home under construction on Falconer Drive in Escondido. 

Lindin’s murder case remained unsolved for 30 years until Gaylor, who was hired as a reserve officer in 2007 to be part of a cold-case homicide team reopened the case, which tied Moon to Lindin’s murder, reports the San Diego Union Tribune

One partial bloody fingerprint processed by the Dept. of Justice came back as a match to Moon, according to the North County Times.  The team began their long tedious investigation by gathering information and interviewing people that should have brought justice to Lindin’s family with the arrest and conviction of Moon, but it seems to fall short.  

You would think that after the latest conviction that Moon would never be allowed out of prison, but instead he was sentenced to 8 years and after serving four, he was let out of jail again.  It is hard to understand why, after killing two people, and according to Gaylor, probably more that he got away with, that Moon is allowed any freedom at all.  

Even more sobering is that the justice system valued Rhonda Salazar’s life so little that Moon only served 12 years for her murder, but it is even more upsetting that Liborio Lindin’s life was only valued a little over four.

Continue reading on Examiner.com

Unbelievable.

There is another article about this insanity here.

There is a video report here but it comes with this:

WARNING: Some of the video and photos in this video report may be extremely disturbing.

Well, maybe after he kills his next victim the state will keep him locked up.

Murderabilia Law Passes House

Bill that would prevent criminals from profiting from crimes passes House

By Charles Geraci The Herald Journal

The Utah House of Representatives has unanimously supported a bill sponsored by Providence Rep. Curt Webb that is intended to keep criminals from profiting from their crimes.

Webb told The Herald Journal on Friday he is “extremely pleased” with Thursday’s vote.

 “The House is often kind of the litmus test. There’s so many of us in there, so many opportunities for people to express concerns,” Webb said. “For it to be a unanimous vote, I think, says a lot about the bill and the importance of the principle involved, which is that criminals should not profit from their crimes.”

The bill, “Notorious Criminal Activity Amendments,” changes the state’s existing “Son of Sam” law, nicknamed after a serial killer who terrorized New York City in the late 1970s. Some speculated at the time that David Berkowitz was being offered large sums of money from publishers in exchange for his story.

Other states have “Son of Sam” laws – designed to prohibit criminals from profiting off their crimes, such as through book deals and movie rights – but Webb said some have been challenged in court on constitutional grounds.

“They were challenged in court based on the freedom of speech issue – that you can’t tell somebody that they can’t do that, and you can’t sue them for what they say. So then (states) started to re-craft these laws … in such a way that people can say what they want to say and their speech is not restricted by law,” Webb explained recently. “But if they or their families benefit financially or in any other way profit from it … then those profits are essentially confiscated and used to pay reparations to the victim that may have been granted in court. Then the balance goes to (the Crime Victim Reparations Fund).”

Webb believes the legislation will pass “constitutional muster” if it is ever challenged.

The bill requires any entity or person who contracts with the convicted individual to pay any profit owed to the fund. Any profit already received must also be remitted to the fund. The Utah Office for Victims of Crime will pay any restitution still owed to the victim, and any remainder will go into the fund.

Webb’s bill was introduced in the Senate on Friday.

I am wondering about gray areas. If the wife, ex wife or child of a killer writes a book how are they affected by this law?

I do not think it is fair to punish someone like Melissa Moore (daughter of Happy Faced Killer Keith Jesperson) for being born and having him as a father. She wrote a book about her life and what it was like at home with Jesperson.

I hope that the lawmakers consider the fact that the families of the killers are victims as well and that they do not punish them in an attempt to punish the actual criminals.

Family member sees ‘justice’ differently

I noted the Rev. Jeremy Tobin’s description of the justice system (“Poor, minorities paying price of ‘justice’,” Oct. 2 letter).

I thought I would offer another view – one from a victim’s family member perspective. The convicted serial killer in my own case murdered seven women in Louisiana.

Tobin states that our justice system “is built to round up black men, transfer public funds to private companies to warehouse them, and then kill them.”

This is quite different from my experience whereby serial murderer Derrick Lee was represented at trial by three very competent attorneys, one a Millsaps graduate.

As a result of overwhelming evidence – including seven bodies with his DNA, an eyewitness, and other forensic evidence – he was convicted and sentenced to death by a multiracial jury.

It is not true as Tobin says that offenders who are “well represented at trial do not get the death penalty.” Moreover, Lee is being housed at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, a state rather than a private institution.

Though Lee’s conviction has been upheld twice already at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court, Louisiana and Mississippi both allow for what is called post-conviction relief (whenever I use that term, I always pause to appreciate the utter irony of that nomenclature), which is yet another set of appeals allowed in capital cases, even those with overwhelming forensic evidence for guilt.

I will go again to Louisiana District Court on Wednesday as I have for years for yet another hearing whereby the defense attorney Gary Clements – out to “score more wins” as Tobin says the prosecutors do -files endless specious claims on behalf of his serial killer client. The post conviction process allows Clements to hijack the legal system, contrary to a rational application of the law.

To me it appears to be a clear case of defense attorneys failing to care at all about the human or fiscal cost of their actions, failing to value honor or justice for the dead, and – in my experience – contempt for the families of those who died at the hands of killers.

Here I have to agree with Tobin; our justice system is “anything but reasonable.” Were it reasonable in cases where DNA – which is considered absolute proof by the Innocence Project – is available, the obvious would be accepted. There is no logic for post-conviction appeals in such cases.

The post-conviction process should be congruent with scientific fact. Good science is the best certainty for justice for all of us – regardless of ethnicity or sex or income level.

Ann R. Pace

Jackson

Here

Fact sheet on Derrick Todd Lee

Victims

 

Life Does Not Mean Life Even For Serial Killers

It was a bright day for justice when legislation allowing consecutive sentences for multiple murderers was given royal assent earlier this year.

The prospect of serial killers being eligible for parole after 10 or 25 years, depending on whether it was second-degree or first-degree murder, has grated on Canadians and caused immense anguish for victims’ families.

Fortunately, the federal Conservatives closed that despicable loophole, ending sentence discounts for multiple murderers. The law permits judges to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility on people convicted of more than one murder.

So when Joseph Laboucan, 26, was swiftly convicted of first-degree murder Monday — his second murder conviction in four years — I expected Canadian judicial history to be made in Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench.

In 2007, Laboucan was sentenced to life with no chance of parole for 25 years for the sadistic rape-murder of 13-year-old Nina Courtepatte, who was lured away from West Edmonton Mall on April 3, 2005.

Two days earlier, Laboucan killed prostitute Ellie May Meyer, 33, after picking her up on 118 Avenue with two friends. He had sex with her in a field, beat her to death and cut off part of her left pinkie finger as a trophy.

Laboucan, I assumed, would be the first serial killer in Canada to be hammered with consecutive sentences. He’s got another 21 years to serve for Courtepatte’s murder before he can apply for parole, so adding another 25-year parole ineligibility period would mean he’d spend 46 years in the clink before being considered for release.

Alas, I was far too optimistic. Even though Laboucan’s most recent murder conviction was handed down Monday, the new legislation doesn’t apply to him.

Why? Because the murders took place before the legislation was passed. And because of another legal technicality: although the law received royal assent in March, it’s still not in effect. The law is to come into force on some future date set by the Governor General. It makes you want to rip your hair out.

Not only must this be demoralizing for the families of Courtepatte and Meyer, it will be a shock to the relatives of all the Alberta women who’ve gone missing (and were presumably murdered) over the years.

Even if a serial killer is caught, he will be eligible for parole after 25 years, no matter how many people he killed.

In Laboucan’s case, he committed two murders for the price of one. Clifford Olson, the poster boy of savagery now dying of cancer, committed 11 murders for the price of one — with the right to apply for parole every two years after he’d spent 25 years in jail.

As former Alberta prosecutor Scott Newark points out, it’s as if all the other victims are of no consequence.

“The way our law was designed so many years ago, nobody … ever really thought through all of that,” he says.

It’s too bad Laboucan couldn’t have been hit with a 46-year sentence, adds Newark. He figures federal justice officials were leery of allowing the new law to apply in previous murders, even if the killers aren’t caught until later. “I refer to it as charter angst,” says Newark.

Laboucan isn’t eligible for parole until he serves 25 years of his latest sentence, says Crown prosecutor Doug Taylor.

“With or without the new parole eligibility requirements, the reality of two life sentences is he will likely be in prison the rest of his life.”

Sorry, but that’s little comfort to those who were hoping for harsher justice for serial killers.

Mindelle Jacobs

Edmonton Sun

Mindelle Jacobs has been a columnist with the Edmonton Sun for more than a decade. She writes on a variety of topics, including crime, immigration, health, social issues and current events of the day. 

 

I agree Ms. Jacobs. Excellent article, I hope that the judges listen!

A little information on Laboucan:

 

Laboucan, who is already serving a life sentence for the murder of 13-year-old Nina Courtepatte, pleaded not guilty to the charge of first-degree murder in the death of the sex trade worker back in April 2005. Still, his lawyers did not present any evidence or challenge any Crown exhibits.

Submitted for consideration was testimony from the preliminary hearing, where an eyewitness said she saw Laboucan chasing and repeatedly swinging something at Meyer’s head.

Multiple people also swore the now 26-year-old showed off a severed pinky finger, which the accused told them was a souvenir from one of his victims. DNA later confirmed the body part belonged to the 33-year-old street worker.

In delivering his decision, the judge said he believed the testimony of one youth who said Laboucan got an adrenaline rush from killing Meyer, and wanted to do it again.

RCMP believe just days after Laboucan killed the Edmonton woman and dumped her body in a field, he led Courtepatte to a golf course just outside the city, and committed the second murder.

The Crown says through Courtepatte’s case, they were able to gather key DNA evidence that tied the accused to Meyer’s death.

Whole article here

 

It is such a scary thought that serial killers can be released.

We know that they do not ‘get better’. We can not ‘cure’ them, the only behavior modification that works is death.

How many bodies will court systems allow to pile up before we stop letting serial killers out?

Victim of Serial Killer Outraged!

The man who cheated death at the hands of serial killer Dennis Nilsen has condemned a decision to give the murderer cash for a human rights claim.

Dennis Nilsen, who killed at least 17 men in the 1970s and 1980s has been awarded £55,000 to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights to try to publish his autobiography.

Carl David Stotter, 50, of Brighton, said he was enraged to hear Nilsen, who tried to suffocate and drown him, has been given aid – even though the victim has not received a penny in compensation for his ordeal.

Nilsen was refused permission to publish his manuscript by the highest courts in Britain so has taken his case to the European Court in Strasbourg.

That court makes the decision on whether to give him the money to argue his case, but the British government will end up footing the bill.

Mr Stotter said: “Why should he have his human rights when his victims haven’t any?

“It’s not justice.”

“This happened to be 29 years ago and I’ll never forgot it.”

“I feel really angry, but this is not just about me. It is about all the people he killed too.”

“I stopped Nilsen having his book published once before and we won, but no one told me he was going to try again.”

“This is not right. There is less help for victims than killers.”

“I have not received a penny of help from anyone.”

“I was the only one of his victims left to be able to seek compensation and I got nothing.”

**From me: There were others that survived Nilsen.  (Andrew Ho, Douglas Stewart, Paul Nobbs)  See below.

From here.

This is a travesty of justice. There is NO way Nilsen should get money to file this claim. he is prison and that should restrict his ‘rights’.

If he wants to sue he should have to come up with the money himself. Why are we rewarding him in any way?

I would actually read his book but I think and money should be given to the victims and their families.

Victims

  • Murder 1, Stephen Dean Holmes: Nilsen’s first murder took place on 30 December 1978. Nilsen claimed to have met his first victim in a gay bar. Nilsen strangled him with a necktie until he was unconscious and then drowned him in a bucket of water. On 12 January 2006, it was announced that the victim had been identified as Stephen Dean Holmes, who was born on 22 March 1964 and was therefore only 14 at the time; Holmes had been on his way home from a concert. On 9 November 2006, Nilsen finally confessed to the murder of Holmes in a letter sent from his prison cell to the Evening StandardNilsen was not charged for the murder as the Crown Prosecution Service decided that a prosecution would not be in the public interest.
  • Between the first and second murders, Nilsen attempted to murder Andrew Ho, a student from Hong Kong he had met in The Salisbury public house in St. Martin’s Lane. Although afterwards he confessed to the police about the incident no charges were brought and Nilsen was not arrested.
  • Murder 2, Kenneth Ockendon: The second next victim was 23-year-old Canadian student Kenneth Ockendon. Nilsen met the tourist in a pub on 3 December 1979 and escorted him on a tour of Central London, after which they went back to Nilsen’s flat for another drink. Nilsen strangled him with the cord of his headphones whilst Ockendon was listening to a record. Ockendon was one of the few murder victims who was reported as a missing person.
  • Murder 3, Martyn Duffey: Martyn Duffey was a 16-year-old runaway from Birkenhead. On 17 May 1980, he accepted Nilsen’s invitation to come over to his place. Nilsen strangled and subsequently drowned Duffey in the kitchen sink.
  • Murder 4, Billy Sutherland: Billy Sutherland was a 26-year-old father-of-one from Scotland who worked as a prostitute. Sutherland met Nilsen in a pub in August, 1980. Nilsen could not remember how he murdered Sutherland; however, it was later revealed that Sutherland had been strangled by bare hands.
  • Murder 5, Unidentified: The fifth next victim was another man who worked as a prostitute; however, this man was never identified. All that is known is that he was probably from the Philippines orThailand.
  • Murder 6, Unidentified: Nilsen could recall very little about this and the following two victims. All that Nilsen could remember about the sixth man was that he was a young Irish labourer that Nilsen had met in the Cricklewood Arms.
  • Murder 7, Unidentified: Nilsen described the seventh victim as a starving “hippy-type” whom Nilsen had found sleeping in a doorway in Charing Cross.
  • Murder 8, Unidentified: Nilsen could recall little about his eighth victim, except that he kept the man’s body under the floorboards of his flat, until he removed the corpse and cut it into three pieces then put it back again. He burned the corpse one year later.
  • At some point between murders 6 and 8, on 10 November 1980, Nilsen attacked a Scottish barman named Douglas Stewart, whom Nilsen met at the Golden Lion in Dean Street. Stewart woke up while being strangled, and was able to fend off his attacker. Although Stewart called the police almost immediately after the attack, the officers refused to take action; reportedly they considered the incident to be a domestic disagreement.
  • Murder 9, Unidentified: The ninth next victim was a young Scottish man who Nilsen met in the Golden Lion pub in Soho in January, 1981.
  • Murder 10, Unidentified: Another young Scottish man. Nilsen strangled him with a tie and placed the body under the floorboards.
  • Murder 11, Unidentified: Nilsen picked up his eleventh victim in Piccadilly Circus. The man was an English skinhead and had a tattoo around his neck reading “cut here”. The man had boasted to Nilsen about how tough he was and how he liked to fight. However, once he was drunk, he proved no match for Nilsen, who hung the man’s naked torso in his bedroom for a day, before burying the body under the floorboards.
  • Murder 12, Malcom Barlow: The 12th next victim was a 24-year-old named Malcolm Barlow. Nilsen murdered Barlow on 18 September 1981. Nilsen found Barlow in a doorway not far from his own home, took him in, and called an ambulance for him. When Barlow was released the next day, he returned to Nilsen’s home to thank him and was pleased to be invited in for a meal and a few drinks. Nilsen murdered Barlow that night. Barlow was the final victim to be murdered at Melrose Avenue.

In October 1981, Nilsen moved to a new house in Muswell Hill.

  • In November 1981, Nilsen targeted Paul Nobbs, a student, at the Golden Lion in Soho, and invited Nobbs back to his new home. The student awoke the next morning with little recollection of the previous evening’s events, and later went to see his doctor because of some bruising that had appeared on his neck. The doctor revealed that it appeared as if the student had been strangled, and advised him to go to the police. However, Nobbs was concerned about what would happen if his sexual orientation were to be disclosed, and did not go to the police.
  • Following this, Nilsen targeted Carl Stotter *, a drag queen known as Khara Le Fox at The Black Cap, in Camden. After passing out from strangulation, Stotter became conscious while Nilsen was trying to drown him in a bath of cold water. Stotter managed to gasp air four times before losing consciousness. Nilsen’s dog then lapped Stotter’s face and uncovered signs of life.[citation neededNilsen then led Stotter to a railway station, through a forest and the two parted ways. Stotter, due to memory loss from the event and alcohol before, reportedly didn’t realise for several years that he had almost been killed.[citation needed]
  • Murder 13, John Howlett: Howlett had first met Nilsen in a West End pub in December 1981. In March, 1982, John Howlett was the first victim to be murdered in Nilsen’s Muswell Hill home. Howlett was one of the few who was able to fight back; however, Nilsen had taken a dislike to him and was determined that he should die. There was a tremendous struggle, in which at one point Howlett even tried to strangle Nilsen back. Eventually, Nilsen drowned Howlett, holding his head under water for five minutes. Nilsen dismembered Howlett’s body, hid some of Howlett’s body parts around the house and flushed others down the toilet.
  • Murder 14, Graham Allen: Graham Allen was another troubled man; a father, originally from Scotland, whom Nilsen met in Shaftesbury Avenue in September, 1982. Nilsen took Allen to his home and prepared an omelette for him. Nilsen crept up on Allen while he was eating and strangled him to death. After murdering Allen, Nilsen left Allen’s body in the bath, unsure how to dispose of it. After three days, Nilsen dismembered him, like his previous victim. Parts of Allens’ remains were what led to the drains being blocked at the flats where Nilsen lived.
  • Murder 15, Stephen Sinclair: Nilsen’s final victim was a 20-year-old man named Stephen Sinclair who was addicted to drugs and alcohol. Nilsen targeted Sinclair in Oxford Street and bought the youth a hamburger. Nilsen then suggested that they go back to his place. After Sinclair drank alcohol and used heroin at Nilsen’s house, Nilsen strangled Sinclair and dismembered Sinclair’s body. Nilsen recalled that the youth’s wrists were covered in slash marks from where Sinclair had recently tried to kill himself. This murder was on 26 January 1983, less than two weeks before Nilsen was arrested. It was Sinclair’s dismembered remains in the drain outside Nilsen’s home that first alerted the police to Nilsen’s murders.[citation needed]   

Getting Paid for Being a Monster

This is SO sad but true.

Don’t let these evil monsters claim a penny

By Fiona McIntosh

We now know what ­serial killers do all day in jail.

They plot new ways to bleed our compensation system dry.

Some of the most vile men ever to have walked the Earth are busy planning their next loony ­compensation sting at the ­taxpayer’s expense.

The “Evil 13”, a gang of serial killers including Milly Dowler’s murderer Levi Bellfield, Soham monster Ian Huntley and the ­Suffolk strangler Steve Wright, have spent tens of thousands of taxpayers’ money lodging trivial compensation claims.

So while severely wounded soldiers are fighting to get even £50,000 for the horrendous loss of their fertility, Levi Bellfield is bunging in a claim for £30,000 because he was “given a slap” by a fellow prisoner.

This 6ft tall 18-stone ­monster has gone crying to ­personal injury lawyers over a minor assault which left him with a few cuts and bruises.

He claims it is his “human right” to be protected from the prison’s main population because of his crimes. Remind us again of those crimes?

Only the savage murder of three young women who no longer have the luxury of any human rights.

Nor do the Dowlers, as Bellfield made sure when he subjected that heartbroken ­family to the most harrowing murder trial in living memory.

It is beyond belief that monsters like Bellfield are being allowed openly to milk our compensation system.

Milly’s killer is said to sit in his prison cell, surrounded by legal papers, figuring out new ways to sue the prison service “for a bit of a laugh”.

Even if his claims are ­eventually thrown out, they still cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds to defend.

That’s on top of the ­£4million we’ve forked already out on legal aid at his trials.

There is something inherently wrong with a system which ­allows a child-killer like Ian Huntley to sue the prison service for £95,000 for a knife attack while ­critically injured soldiers ­returning from ­serving our country in Afghanistan are forced to fight for years to get half-decent ­compensation ­payments.

Part of the problem lies with the new breed of no-win, no-fee lawyers who will do anything to make a fast buck, even if it means screwing the taxpayer for the sake of a serial killer who will never see the light of day outside ­prison.

While even the worst offenders have the right to sue the prison service for serious assaults, this sub-culture of petty claims through personal injury lawyers must now end.

Even outside prison these legal vultures are a menace to the taxpayer, with the cost of ­personal injury claims doubling to ­£14billion in 10 years.

It now means every motorist in the country is paying exorbitant insurance premiums to fund petty claims.

Former Labour Justice Secretary Jack Straw is on a crusade to clamp down on this legal racket.

It is not only costing us dear but lining the pockets of our most heinous criminals.

From Here

*Applause*

Laws need to be changed.

 

 

Parents Grieve

Joanna Parrish: ‘We just want to know who killed our daughter’

Twenty-one years after the unsolved murder of an English student in France, the parents of Joanna Parrish still search for answers. Last week, they learnt they may never find justice.

It was a last, desperate attempt by Pauline Murrell to discover who killed her daughter Joanna more than 20 years ago: a heart-rending three-page letter to the wife of the suspected killer, begging her “as one mother to another” to tell her the truth.

“I hope that you will be able to give us a bit of the peace of mind that we have been seeking for so long,” reads the letter. “We need to know the truth and you are the only person who can help us… Madame, I beg you to re-examine your conscience and tell me the truth.”

“I thought that, as a mother of three sons, she would understand; that maybe she would have the same parental feelings as a normal person,” says Mrs Murrell sadly, sipping a cup of tea. We are sitting in the handsome Gloucestershire cottage owned by Roger Parrish, Joanna’s 67-year-old father. The couple are divorced, and Pauline remarried, but their shared grief means they remain close friends.

Joanna Parrish’s parents have spent more than two decades fighting for justice for their 20-year-old daughter who was found raped and strangled in a river in Auxerre, Burgundy.

With no help forthcoming from Monique Olivier – the wife of the French serial killer Michel Fourniret, who was suspected of Jo’s murder but never tried – the couple have had to rely on the French police investigation, which they feel has been inadequate.

Then last week they received another crushing blow, one that almost certainly means they will never know who killed their daughter. They were informed that a Paris prosecutor had asked a judge to rule that there is “no case to answer” against Fourniret and Olivier.

“We had been dreading the day when we would hear this news,” says Mr Parrish, a retired civil servant. “That’s why we sent the letter. It is a terrible shock. It means the case is closed and we will never know who killed Jo. All we ever wanted was the truth so that we could move on with our lives. That almost certainly won’t be possible now.”

Joanna, a languages student at Leeds University, was found dead on May 17, 1990, a week before she was due to finish teaching English as an assistante at a lycée in Auxerre, where she was spending the third year of her four-year course.

Her parents had planned to visit her and take her belongings home. Meanwhile, Joanna was set to travel on to the Czech Republic to join her boyfriend Patrick, another Leeds student spending a year abroad.

According to a flatmate, Jo had received a phone call from a man responding to a newspaper advert she had placed offering private English classes. He said he wanted Joanna to teach his son. She arranged to meet the mystery caller outside the Banque Populaire in Auxerre at 7pm – but she never returned home. Her naked body was found the following day in the River Yonne, three miles outside the town. She had been raped and strangled.

The death of such a popular, friendly girl, with her adult life just beginning, shattered her family. “She was at that age when she was slipping free of the apron strings,” Mr Parrish says as he flicks through photographs of Jo – his “bright, happy, caring” daughter – as a sweet 14-year-old; Jo aged 16 as Sleeping Beauty in a pantomime; Jo with her brother, Barney, three years her junior. “She was sailing across a smooth sea. She was at a top university, with a bright career ahead of her, and in a fulfilling relationship. She was doing well and was happy. Then she was taken from us, from everyone, in such a terrible way.

“She had done nothing wrong, she was innocent. I cannot find the words to describe the impact her loss has had – and is still having – on us. It was like the end of our lives.”

Once, even twice, a year following their daughter’s murder, her grief-stricken parents would travel to France to hand out leaflets, appeal for information, and search for clues, witnesses, anything that might help.

Then in May 2008, Michel Fourniret, now 68, was jailed for life for murdering seven women aged between seven and 21 in north-east France and Belgium. He was dubbed The Beast of Ardennes. His wife, Monique Olivier, who had helped lure the victims, was also given a life sentence for complicity.

Mr Parrish says there are “too many similarities” with the other murders. At Fourniret’s trial, they heard how he was obsessed with raping and killing girls and young women, preferably virgins, aided by his wife, who was described in court as “a deceitful witch”. His victims were strangled, like Joanna, or shot or stabbed to death with a screwdriver, mostly in the forests of Ardennes.

In several cases Olivier gave a lift to a girl, sometimes with her baby son in the back of the car, and would then “pick up” Fourniret who would be waving an empty petrol can at the roadside. He was eventually caught in 2003 after a 13-year-old girl he had abducted escaped from the back of his white van when it stopped at traffic lights. She told police Fourniret had said to her: “Shut up or I’ll kill you. You must give me pleasure.”

Monique Olivier has thrice told prosecutors that she had seen her husband murder a young woman in Auxerre and then dump the body in the Yonne river in 1990 – which is precisely what happened to Joanna. But each time she had retracted the confession, claiming it was made under duress.

Joanna’s parents remain calm and dignified, but they are still angry that the police did not do more to find Jo’s killer. The investigation has been beset by blunders and delays as the Auxerre police “lost” crucial DNA evidence that, with today’s technology, could have led them to the murderer.

Crucially, officers also failed to trace the phone call made to Joanna to arrange the English lessons. “There is something very wrong with the way the investigation was handled,” says Mr Parrish. “It’s been incredibly frustrating.”

Parents never recover from the loss of a child; they can only cope as best they can. Mr Parrish says the torment is worst at night. He has had to take sleeping pills every evening since Jo’s death.

Joanna’s mother is similarly tormented. “Never a day goes by that we don’t think about her.” She admits she didn’t cry for months after her daughter’s death, partly because she was in denial, partly because they were used to Jo being away from home for long periods. But the reality hit her in October, and the tears flowed, when she read a copy of the post-mortem report. The details of Jo’s death were gruesome. “I told Roger not to read it, but he did. It was just so horrible,” she says.

Their turbulent emotions include an element of guilt, irrational perhaps, but real to those who are left behind when children die. “It feels we have let her down,” says Mrs Murrell. “I think that perhaps we could have done some things differently.”

Indeed, memories of Jo come back to haunt them at unexpected times – when they hear a song or music that she loved, for instance, such as Pachelbel’s Canon or Wham’s Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go, which the family would sing as “before you Jo-Jo”.

Stumbling across something that belonged to their lost daughter can also trigger powerful emotions. “I found her school scarf the other day and I just started crying,” says her mother.

Jo’s brother, Barney, was “knocked sideways” by his sister’s death. “He saw her as a guiding light and was a lost soul when she was killed,” says Mr Parrish. “He didn’t talk about Jo for months.”

Barney missed the summer term of his lower sixth and, though he returned to school for his upper sixth year, was unable to sit his A-levels. He also had to cope with another shock: the news that his parents were separating.

They had decided to split up six weeks before Jo was killed. Roger and Pauline had told Jo who, they say, “understood”, but didn’t plan to tell Barney until his sister was back from her travels. In the end, he had to deal with both blows at once.

“He was a young 17 and we were worried about him,” says Mr Parrish. “It took him until he was well into his thirties before he settled down.”

Jo and Barney’s parents went ahead with the separation but remain close. Barney, now 39, and his wife Hayley have given Roger and Pauline three grandchildren – a source, they say, of immense comfort.

Locals in the picture-perfect village of Newnham on Severn, where Jo spent most of her teenage years, rallied round after the murder, calling in regularly to check on the family. Her funeral was held at the local St Peter’s church, with 600 people attending the service. “Neighbours still ask me about the investigation,” says Mrs Murrell.

Even today, the family receives emails from many of Jo’s French pupils and university friends. Her boyfriend Patrick, now married with two daughters, visits the family and puts flowers on Jo’s grave every year.

Her family gathers on Jo’s birthday – July 30 – to “celebrate” her life, while her parents also meet, more quietly, on the anniversary of her death.

But Joanna’s parents have also had to cope with criticism of their quest to find the truth about what happened to their daughter. When they went on their regular trips to France to check on the investigation and make their own inquiries, one teacher accused them of giving the Lycée Jacques Amyot, where Joanna had taught, a bad name. Others in the town said they were damaging the reputation of Auxerre and putting off tourists. Mr Parrish was even criticised for saying the fact that Joanna was dragged to the river along a small, hidden track suggested the killer was a local person.

Twenty-one years after their daughter’s murder, her parents know that the last legal door has probably been slammed in their faces, even though their lawyers will challenge the decision. The case against Fourniret can be reopened if new evidence emerges in the next 10 years – but they know this is unlikely.

But Joanna’s parents have not yet given up hope entirely. The couple are pinning their hopes on Monique Olivier – perhaps even Fourniret himself – confessing before they die.

“They will both get older and they may just decide to say something,” believes Mr Parrish. “And we have to cling to that hope.”

Article

The case has been closed. 
Crime Library Story on Fourniret and Olivier.

Serial Killer Dying For a Playstation

The Sony Playstation is so popular that even geriatrics enjoy some of the intense gaming offered by the console. For instance, a 67-year old serial killer in Australia wants one so bad he’s staging a hunger strike. Guess he hasn’t been daunted by the recent PSN crash and his desire for the gaming console is becoming a need; If he doesn’t get one, he’ll possibly starve to death.

Ivan Milat

For those of you who don’t know who Ivan Milat is, well, consider yourselves lucky for one thing. He’s possibly one of Australia’s most notorious serial killers and is responsible for the “Backpacker Murders,” having claimed seven or more victims throughout the 1990s, and possibly prior. Most of his victims were international backpackers who traveled the world and were between the ages of 19 and 22. He preyed on young girls and men, deriving pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering.

Ivan Milat methodically bound his victims, sometimes stretching their arms above their heads and gagging them. Once they were bound and rendered defenseless, he would then unleash what can only be described as “frenzied” attacks on the victims. The first two bodies discovered, two young girls, indicated he had bound them both in this manner. He shot one several times, and stabbed the other to the point that some of her ribs were severed. The shocking details of the backpacker murders can be read further here.

Ivan Milat is apparently bored, since he is serving more than seven consecutive life sentences for his crimes, so he probably really does want that Playstation console. In fact, he’s downright stir-crazy and has not eaten in nine days, reports one source. Officials in the High Court in Australia aren’t surprised, because this isn’t the first time Milat has pulled a far-out and crazy stunt to get attention. He’s kind of an attention-whore like that. Back in January of 2009, Milate sawed off one of his own fingers with a plastic knife and attempted to mail it to the High Court in Australia. Doctors were not able to sew the digit back in place. He has also swallowed razor blades and other metallic objects to both harm himself and garner attention.

“There’s no inmate on my watch who would ever get anything close to a Playstation, particularly Australia’s worst serial killer,” said Woodham. “I knew he’d start eating again because he likes his food too much. He can stage as many protests as he likes, but there’d be no point if he got one because he needs two hands to use it.

Prison staff are currently observing Milat closely, with intravaneous means of feeding him in case he collapses. They are not going to allow him to starve to death in their prison, nor are they going to entertain his desires to have a Playstation console.

Source

This is ridiculous. He wants s a frigging PlayStation?

Let him die already. How much did it cost the tax payers to attempt to sew his finger back on after he sawed it off? How much did it cost when he swallowed the blades? How much is this latest stunt costing the tax payers? For what? Why are they keeping him alive?

Serial Killer Memorabilia For Sale

On Thursday, the U.S. Marshals Service announced that it was auctioning 60 lots of possessions seized from Ted Kaczynski’s Montana cabin after his 1996 arrest, including the original handwritten and typewritten versions of his infamous “Unabom Manifesto,” his typewriters, shoes, diaries and thousands of books. The proceeds from the sale, which runs from May 18 to June 2, will go to four of his victims and their families. Last year they were awarded $15 million in compensation, a ruling Kaczynski, whose 20-year terror spree killed three people and injured and maimed 23 others, bitterly tried to block on the grounds that it violated his First Amendment rights.

John Wayne Gacy, the man who raped, tortured and killed 33 young men on a horrifying six-year spree, has no similar word of protest about his possessions; he was executed in 1994. And if your shopping taste runs less to dirty shoes and sunglasses and more to scary clowns, a Las Vegas gallery is exhibiting and selling off his works in an exhibition called ” Multiples: The Artwork of John Wayne Gacy.” Gacy, who famously developed a painting hobby while on death row, cranked out dozens of canvases in his last years, from disturbing skulls to portraits of Elvis and Charles Manson to greeting card-ready flowers and birds.

Starting this month and running through September, the Arts Factory is offering his works for between $2,000 and $12,000 apiece, promising that proceeds from the exhibit, “according to the wishes of the executor of Gacy’s art portfolio,” will go to “the community at large, including the Contemporary Arts Center, 18b Arts District and the National Center for Victims of Crime.” But as CNN reported Friday on the “controversial serial killer’s paintings” (as opposed to, say, those of a beloved serial killer),  the National Center for Victims of Crime wants none of it. The advocacy group sent a cease-and-desist letter to the gallery. But owner Westly Myles told KTNV this week, “I see it as an opportunity to help from something that was bad.”

So which is it? Crude exploitation or making lemonade out of senseless crime? The Gacy exhibition’s press materials ponder, “Can we resist the impulse to attribute these inanimate objects, these oil paintings, to evil? Is the gallery a temple in which only those deemed worthy should be displayed, or is it, rather, a courtroom, a place all artists are equally qualified to be judged?” Hitler was an artist too; it’s just not the first of his job titles that springs to mind when you say his name.

The uneasy part of both auctions is the horrible fascination they evoke. The Unabomber auction’s Flickr set alone is hauntingly sad and strangely artistic — like a grimly beautiful Irving Penn tableau.  And while Gacy’s work would hardly make it to the MoMA on its own merits, with the right representation and if you didn’t know the artist, it could still probably fetch a pretty penny at a downtown gallery.

Article

There is always the question of why someone would want to own anything connected to these monsters. I even wonder why.

I guess for some it is simply a shock value / conversation piece.
To some it could be owing a piece of history, no matter how dark.
Some could raise themselves by looking into a part of the abyss that they know they would never enter.
Then there those that are fascinated by the horror  of the monster on the wall blending the  fantasy into the reality.

Regardless of why someone would want to buy Murderabilia there is a greater question.

I have written about Murderabilia before and I even posted a poll about it but I wonder if where the proceeds of the sale goes makes a difference.  The Marshals are giving all proceeds to the victims and the Gacy art show will go to different charities. Does that make it alright?

In my opinion if the proceeds go to victims or charities then sell what you want. I don’t want it, but if it can help others then so be it.

I also wonder how the U.S. Marshal’s sale affects the laws that U.S. Sen. John Cornyn is trying to pass banning all sales of murderabilia.

Cornyn, R-Austin, is expected to announce today — with Mayor Annise Parker at City Hall — the introduction of federal legislation that would ban online sales of such items by making it illegal for prisoners, or another person on their behalf, to mail items to be sold in interstate commerce. The bill aims to remove the financial incentive for prisoners to sell murderabilia and allows victims to recover damages and legal fees from violators.

Read more

I am against criminals profiting from their crimes at the same time I am not sure where the line should be drawn. There are so many gray areas.

If a serial killer has children can the mother of those children auction things to support the kids?

If a person writes to a prisoner and later wants to sell the letters is that alright? What if while corresponding with the prisoner they sent money? Does that count as the prisoner gaining a profit?
(Side note; how different is this from a reporter or author bringing food, soda or snacks to a prisoner?)

There are many sites where one can buy murderabilia if they so choose. Some of the sellers admit that part of the money goes to the criminal and others say that all the criminal gets is attention and correspondence. Some give to victim’s groups and others do not.

The question is,

When, if ever, is it alright to buy or sale murderabilia?

%d bloggers like this: