Sabrina Bullock murder 12/30/2012 Woodbury, NJ *Body found in a clothing collection bin; Harry John Neher charged with her murder*

Sabrina Bullock
Sabrina Bullock

This Just In: Body of 43-Year-Old Woodbury Woman Discovered, Possible Homicide Victim
Missing Woodbury woman’s body found in shed; police investigating murder
Arrest made after NJ woman’s body found in collection bin
Arrest Made In Death Of 41-Year-Old Woman Found In Woodbury Shed
Authorities: Missing Woodbury Woman Was Murdered
Gloucester County Authorities Arrest Homicide Suspect
Woodbury woman found dead in storage shed ‘one of the nicest people you could meet’: parents

51 South Broad Street alley
51 South Broad Street Woodbury, NJ


Monsters Among Us: Timothy S. Chaney killed 12-year-old Michelle Winter, sentenced to death, but later resentenced to LWOP

body tapeFrom State of Missouri v Timothy S Chaney 1998:

Around eleven o’clock on Saturday morning, April 8, 1995, thirteen-year-old Stephanie Steele called her friend Michelle Winter, who was three weeks away from her thirteenth birthday.   Stephanie asked Michelle if she wanted to spend the afternoon together.   Michelle received permission from her mother and changed into a brand new sweater that her mother had purchased for her the previous Wednesday.   This was the first time Michelle had worn the sweater.   Michelle left the house on foot to meet Stephanie, but did not say goodbye to her mother.   Stephanie and Michelle walked to the library together, then walked to a fast food restaurant, and then stopped at a gas station to buy soda and candy.   While at the gas station, they ran into Michelle’s mother, Jackie Nowak, who chided Michelle for not letting her know when she had left the house.   The girls walked back to Stephanie’s house.   They used the typewriter and watched the television in Stephanie’s bedroom.   Michelle called her mother around 3:30 p.m. and assured her that she would not leave without calling her first.   Michelle fell asleep on Stephanie’s bed.

Later that afternoon, Timothy Chaney, Stephanie’s stepfather, came into Stephanie’s bedroom and told her that he was going around the corner to get his van washed.   Stephanie’s mother, Wendy Chaney, was asleep.   At 4:50 p.m., both girls left the house, but walked in opposite directions.   Stephanie turned north to return a videotape, and Michelle walked south to return home.   Michelle then turned east on the street where she lived.   Neighbors saw her around five o’clock walking toward her house carrying a book bag.

At six o’clock, Jackie Nowak called Stephanie’s house to tell Michelle to return home.   Stephanie told her that Michelle had left her house around 5:00 p.m. After driving around the neighborhood without success in finding Michelle, Jackie returned home and called the Springfield police.

Timothy Chaney had not yet returned home.   Wendy Chaney asked her next-door neighbors, Richard and Cheri Nelson, if they knew of her husband’s whereabouts.   They did not.   Timothy Chaney returned home in the van around 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. Wendy and Timothy Chaney then drove Wendy’s car to Jackie Nowak’s house to let her know that they would search near the mall.

The next day, a police detective questioned Timothy Chaney and noted that he had tears in his eyes, and that when Chaney’s voice broke in mid-sentence, he had to stop to regain his composure.   Later that day, Richard Nelson asked Chaney where he had been the night before.   Chaney told Nelson that he had driven to Linden Lure off of route 60 to go fishing, but fell asleep because he had been drinking beer that afternoon.

On April 12, a police investigator questioned Timothy Chaney at his optical business as to his whereabouts Saturday afternoon and evening.   Chaney told the officer that he and his wife had gone to a bar Saturday afternoon, had a couple of beers, and returned home around 2:30 p.m. According to Chaney, at 4:30 p.m. he took the van to be washed, but as the car wash was full, he decided to go fishing instead.   He then claims he drove to Springfield Lake, did some fishing, but lost his only two lures in the first ten to fifteen minutes.   He stated that he then went to the James River, which runs into Springfield Lake, to fish off of the bank.   At this point in the questioning, the officer asked Chaney how he could continue fishing without any lures and, after a long pause, Chaney responded that he was just going to look for a spot to go in the future.   Chaney stated that after failing to find access to the James River, he continued south through Sparta, saw a sign for Linden and had heard that Linden Lure was a good place to fish.   The officer thought this was odd, because if Chaney had been traveling south, he would have passed through Linden before Sparta.   Chaney told the officer that he drove to Linden Lure and watched two fisherman for a while and then fell asleep.   He claims that when he woke up around 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. and started home, he turned south by mistake, so he took 14 Highway south to the city of Ozark, and then caught U.S. 65 north to Springfield.

On April 14, an officer of the Missouri State Water Patrol discovered Michelle’s body off of an undeveloped cul-de-sac near Cape Fair in Stone County, less than a one-hour drive south of Chaney’s house.   Timothy Chaney was familiar with the Cape Fair area as he had previously gone camping and fishing there and had a business in a nearby community.

Michelle’s body was partially covered by leaves.   Her sweater was rolled up to her neck, exposing her chest.   Her jeans were undone and pulled down exposing her pubic area.   She had on no undergarments.   Her left shoe was missing.

The autopsy revealed that Michelle had suffered several blows to the head and four stab wounds to the right and middle chest area.   The pathologist who examined the victim stated the condition of the body was consistent with a body that may have been in the woods since shortly after her disappearance.   She died from the stab wounds, which had pierced her heart and lungs.   The wounds were round, ice pick type injuries.   Her sweater had no holes in it.   Scratches on the underside of her body demonstrated that her body had been dragged to the spot after her death.   She had bruises on her shins, which suggested that she struggled before her death.   She had two bruises on the right side of her neck, which occurred before her death.   The contents of her stomach included a few fragments of brownish nut material.   Sexual assault tests were performed.   There was no injury to her genitalia.   There was no evidence of semen or penetration.

Later that day, police officers searched Chaney’s home.   Timothy Chaney was advised of his Miranda rights.   He told the officer that he and his wife had consumed two pitchers of beer the afternoon of Michelle’s disappearance.   He remembered the additional detail that after failing to find access to the river he had passed a cemetery and noticed a headstone with the name of “Holland.”   It caught his eye because that was the name of his business partner.   He purchased twenty dollars worth of gas with a twenty dollar bill at the station by the cemetery and then continued south.   He remembered that there was a young boy floating in an inner tube at Linden Lure. He also remembered that he saw someone being placed in handcuffs by police officers at a gas station in the city of Ozark.   On this occasion, Chaney did not mention driving through Sparta or the two fishermen at Linden Lure. The police did not find anyone who remembered seeing Timothy Chaney on April 8 at Lake Springfield, Linden Lure, Ozark, or the gas station near the cemetery.

On April 14, police towed Chaney’s van to the police station, where it was searched and vacuumed for trace evidence.   There was standing water underneath the mats in the back of the van, and water in the step wells in the front.   There were pieces of peanuts on the floor of the front passenger side.

Later in the afternoon, Timothy Chaney spoke with the Nelsons again about Michelle.   He told them he had been at Lake Springfield the night she disappeared.   Chaney also expressed concern that Michelle’s hair or something else from her person might be in the van for reasons other than Michelle having been in the van.   He stated that, to his knowledge, it had been a year since Michelle had actually been in the van.

On August 22, the police returned to the Chaney residence to conduct a second search of the van.   Timothy Chaney asked if he could remove his gray tool box from the van.   He was denied permission, and became agitated.   An awl-like tool consistent with Michelle’s wounds was found in a tire repair kit in the gray tool box.   Various paint samples, carpet fibers, and a hair were also obtained.

Michelle’s clothing was examined for foreign evidence not common to her clothes and not common to the wooded area in which she was found.   A forensic scientist found pieces of steel blue rubber, red paint chips with a layer of rust, red-orange paint chips, dark metallic blue automotive paint chips, pieces of paper painted dark blue, turquoise paint chips with a white primer coat, tiny brown iron spheres, metallic shavings, and shreds of foil.   Examination of the vacuumings from the back of the van produced identical pieces of material.   Molecular testing revealed that each category of material had a common source.   Metal shavings found on Michelle’s clothing and in the van vacuumings were of the same elemental composition as samples of metal grindings obtained during a May 13, 1996 search of Chaney’s optical business.

Pieces of glitter, turquoise-colored fibers, what appeared to be black animal hairs, and what appeared to be insect droppings were found on Michelle’s clothing and in the vacuumings from the back of the van, but tests were not conducted to confirm common sources.   The state’s forensic analyst testified that Michelle would have had to have been lying down in the back of the van to pick up the amount of material that was found on her clothing.   She also testified that the combination of materials found on Michelle’s clothes and vacuumed from the back of the van was so unique that the “likelihood that you would find this pool anywhere else but [the back of the van] is so unlikely it’s astronomical.”   The analyst further testified that particles as heavy as the iron spheres and paint chips found on the victim would have tended to fall off if the victim had been up and active after acquiring the particles.

Two head hairs inconsistent with Michelle’s hair were found on her clothes.   When compared with Timothy Chaney’s hair, the samples were indistinguishable under a microscope.

Two hairs found in the vacuumings from the back of Chaney’s van were similar in appearance to Michelle’s hair, and were not similar to Chaney’s hair.   DNA testing could be performed on these hairs, because scalp tissue was attached to them.   That testing was performed and indicated that these hairs were consistent with the genetic profile of the victim and inconsistent with the genetic profile of Timothy Chaney.   Less than one half of one percent of the population have the same genetic profile as the victim.

88 men await death at Potosi, lone woman at Chillicothe
State of Missouri v Timothy S. Chaney 1998
Timothy Chaney v State of Missouri 2002

Nightmare Next Door: Wrong Way Home


TimothyChaney prison mug

DOC Id 990132
Offender Name Timothy Chaney
Race White
Sex Male
Date of Birth 01/23/1951
Height/Weight 6’2″ / 230
Hair/Eyes Brown /Blue
Assigned Location Southeast Correctional Center
Address 300 East Pedro Simmons Drive, Charleston, MO 63834
Assigned Officer Phone Number (573) 683-4409
Sentence Summary Life W/O Parole
Active Offenses MURDER 1ST DEGREE
Completed Offenses MURDER 1ST DEGREE
Aliases TIM Chaney; Timothy Chaney; Timothy S Chaney

Monsters Among Us: John N. Prante convicted of killing Karla Brown, sentenced to 75 years in prison

Karla BrownFrom People v Prante 1986:

On June 21, 1978, at about 5:45 p.m. the police department of the city of Wood River received a call to come to 979 Acton concerning the death of Karla Brown, who, with her boyfriend, had moved to that address the day before. The seminude body of this 22-year-old woman had been found in the laundry room in the basement of the house some minutes earlier by her boyfriend, Mark Fair, returning from a day at work, and a friend, Thomas Feigenbaum, who was at that time using his truck to help Mark Fair move some large items to the house on Acton. The victim, about 4 feet 11 inches tall and weighing about 100 pounds, was found with her head and shoulders immersed in water in a large metal lard can that had been used to store winter clothes. Her hands were tied behind her back with a white extension cord from which the ends had been cut. Her stiffened body was bent over the barrel at the waist. Nude below the waist, she was wearing a heavy sweater that was buttoned and that she usually wore only for social occasions in cold weather. Two men’s socks, tied together, were tied tightly around her neck. She had a large gash on her forehead, a cut on her nose, and a large gash on her chin. The area where the socks had been tied around her neck was bruised. The socks had been kept in a dresser drawer in a bedroom upstairs, the extension cord had been packed in a box in the basement, and the clothes in the lard can had been dumped on the basement floor. A couch in the basement was blood soaked, and blood was splattered on the basement floor. The bloodied cushion was heavily saturated with water. On a coffee table near the couch was a blood-stained tampon. At one end of the couch a stand of TV trays was overturned. A coffee pot from the couple’s coffee maker was found in the rafters of the laundry room. The entrance at the rear of the house leads directly to the basement.

The police secured the crime scene. All of the State’s witnesses who had been at the scene testified that, with the exception of Mark Fair and Thomas Feigenbaum, only medical and law-enforcement personnel were or could have been at the scene. According to their testimony, the defendant was not there at any time and could not, because of security, have been anywhere in the house at 979 Acton after the police arrived. No information was distributed to the public. The occupant of the house next door at 989 Acton was Paul Main, a friend of the defendant. One of the police officers, Charles Nonn, who arrived at the scene at about 6:20 p.m., had known the defendant for four or five years prior to the time of the murder and testified that he saw the defendant standing outside with Paul Main when the witness arrived to investigate the crime. Although the crime scene was processed for fingerprints, those identified, with the apparent exception of one, were the victim’s. No fingerprints of the defendant were found at the scene. There was testimony that in such a case the police would expect to find more fingerprints than were actually found.

The State called as witnesses persons who had spoken with the victim on the telephone on the morning of June 21, 1978. At about 9:30 a.m. that day the victim had called Jamie Hale, a friend, and seemed to be fine. When Jamie Hale tried to call the victim that same day at about 2:30 p.m., she got no answer. At about 10 a.m. that day the victim had called Debra Davis, who left shortly thereafter to visit the victim. When she reached the victim’s residence at about 11 a.m., no one answered either the front or the back door, although the victim’s van was at the house. She tried to telephone the victim at about 11:45 a.m. or 12 p.m. and repeatedly throughout the afternoon but got no answer. At about 9 a.m. that day the victim called Helen Fair, the mother of Mark Fair, who returned her call between 10 and 11 a.m. The conversation was interrupted by the victim’s saying, “Helen, someone is at the door, and I’ll call you back.” When the witness did not hear from the victim, she tried to call her between 12 and 12:30 p.m., but there was no answer.

Eric Moses, who was 11 years old at the time of trial and 6 years old at the time of the murder, testified that he had lived in the house at 979 Acton and that on June 21, 1978, while his grandmother was taking him to a dental appointment in the area, he forgot to tell her where the dentist’s office was. To turn around she used the driveway at 979 Acton, at which time, about 10:45 a.m., the witness saw a woman, matching the description of the victim, and a man talking in the driveway. Edna Moses, Eric’s grandmother, testified similarly and stated that, as she was turning around, the woman started to walk toward the house.

On the date in question Edna Vancil, the aunt of Paul Main and his sister, Elizabeth Westbrook, lived across the street from the residences of the victim and Paul Main. The witness testified that on that morning Elizabeth Westbrook visited her, having arrived between 9:30 and 10 a.m. in the defendant’s car. The defendant, she said, went to Paul Main’s house and sat on the front porch with Paul Main until about 11 a.m., when the two “disappeared” until almost noon, at which time they resumed sitting on the porch until about 3 p.m., when the defendant left in his car. She testified that she did not see him or his car the rest of that day.

John Scroggins, who knew both the victim and the defendant, testified that on the afternoon before the murder, he and the defendant had been at Paul Main’s, at which time he introduced the victim and the defendant, who afterward on that same day expressed considerable sexual interest in the victim.

According to testimony by an employee of the Shell Refinery, seemingly located in the St. Louis, Missouri, area, the defendant had submitted an employment application there in person sometime between 8 a.m. and noon on June 21, 1978. On an employment application to Aerco Industrial Gases dated June 19, 1978, the defendant listed as his first reference Spencer Bond.

The State put on evidence that the victim had been a student at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville in 1975 or 1976 and was a student there for three years.

In the summer of 1980 Alva Busch, a crime-scene technician with the Department of Law Enforcement, was investigating the case and felt that two new techniques, unavailable at the time of the murder, might aid the investigation: green laser, used with respect to fingerprints; and image enhancement, which was being used to identify instruments that had made wounds and to identify bite marks. In mid-August of 1980 police sent Dr. Homer Campbell of the University of New Mexico all of the photographs they had of the crime scene. Dr. Campbell wanted the TV trays and tray rack hand carried to him and found blood on the bottom of the rack. Dr. Campbell indicated that certain marks, in the area of the victim’s right collarbone, were bite marks. Prior to this time no one who had examined the body or worked on the case had been particularly familiar with bite marks or had thought that there were any on the body of Karla Brown. In the spring of 1982, according to Agent Randall Rushing of the Department of Law Enforcement, an investigation plan was developed to take photographs of the crime scene to a “profile man” by the name of Douglas, at the FBI Academy at Quantico, who provides psychological profiles of criminal suspects. At that time the investigation focused on Paul Main and had not yet focused on the defendant. As a result of the meeting with Mr. Douglas, the police decided to proceed, with the agreement of the victim’s family, to exhume the victim’s body. The police believed that “after four years the killer had become complacent, and a high profile was developed in order to make the killer nervous.” To promote the plan “[a] high amount of coverage profile by the media was generated.” Articles appeared in newspapers of the area concerning the impending exhumation, the existence of bite marks on the body, and technological advances in forensic science since the time of the murder. On June 1, 1982, Karla Brown’s body was exhumed and a second autopsy performed.

At the first autopsy on June 22, 1978, Dr. Harry Parks, the pathologist who performed it, observed two large lacerations on the face, a fracture of the jaw at the tip of the chin, and several bruises, especially severe around the throat and consistent with strangulation, which was, in his opinion, the cause of death. He estimated the time of death to have been about six hours before the body was found at about 5:45 p.m. The time of death could, he said, vary by as much as two to three hours. Because he observed no water in the lungs, he was of the opinion that the victim was not breathing at the time her head was submerged in the water. He palpated no skull fractures and at the time noticed nothing indicative of human bite marks. He testified that at the time he did the autopsy he knew very little about bite marks and had heard very little about their usefulness as evidence.

On June 2, 1982, following exhumation of the body, Dr. Mary Case performed the second autopsy. She found that the jawbone had been broken in two places by a single blow and that the skull had been injured in three places by three blows of significant force with a blunt instrument. A blow to the back of the head had caused a fracture of the strongest portion of the bone of the head. The witness was of the opinion that the cause of death was drowning because of the presence of foam around the nose, indicating that the victim had had respiratory movements under the water. The witness was of the further opinion that the victim had been sexually assaulted. She testified that bite marks in the area of the right collarbone had been inflicted at about the time of death when the other injuries were inflicted and not, for example, two days earlier or even one hour earlier, because microscopic slides of that tissue showed fresh hemorrhage in the subcutaneous tissue with no inflammation.

Agent Thomas O’Connor of the Department of Law Enforcement testified that on July 1, 1982, at about 3 p.m. he had interviewed Vickie White at her place of employment; at about 5:45 p.m. that same day he had interviewed Mark White, her husband; after 10:30 p.m. that same day he had talked with Roxanne Bond; and later that same evening he had interviewed her husband, Spencer Bond.

Vickie White testified that she had known the defendant for about eight years. She said that not more than three days after the murder of Karla Brown had occurred she and her husband, Mark, were visiting during the weekend with Spencer and Roxanne Bond in the kitchen of their house in East Alton when the defendant came in and began to talk about Karla Brown, saying that he had known her when he had gone to “SIU.” The witness testified that “Prante had stated that she was murdered and that her body was down in her basement, and she was in a curled up position, and she had teeth marks on her body.” When he made the remark about the teeth marks, she said, “[h]e put his arm over his shoulder.” She stated further that the defendant had “said that he had been there that day ? the same day she was murdered. Prante said that she [sic] was there the same day that she was murdered, and he talked about, you know, her body being in the basement and she was in a curled up position. She had teeth marks on her body, and that’s when he pointed over his shoulder. And he ? he had made the statement that he had to get his story straight and he had to get out of town because the police were looking for him.”

The witness stated that the defendant had “said he had to get his story straight with Paul Main because they was [sic] in some trouble and that he had to get out of the State.” The defendant said he had been at Karla Brown’s house “earlier that day,” that she was all right when he left, and that he was supposed to go back to her house. The witness said that she had been walking in and out of the room during the conversation but that she had heard most of it. She testified that newspaper articles concerning the exhumation had brought her attention to the matter. She said she had not read any articles about the murder until she read those concerning the exhumation and had heard about the murder, at first, from the defendant and, later, at work. In 1978, she said, when she had heard the conversation, she was unaware of its significance with respect to the investigation.

Mark White testified that he had known the defendant for about seven years and would see him “[v]ery rarely, maybe three, four times a year.” The witness had heard about the murder a day or two after it had occurred. He said that within three days after he had heard about the murder he and his wife were talking in the Bond’s kitchen on a weekend when the defendant came by. The defendant brought up the subject of the murder and said of it “that he had been over to [Karla Brown’s] house and they were just talking about her; that he knew her, and he was supposed to go back later on in the evening; and I don’t know if he ever did or not.” The defendant stated that “he was going to have to leave town because of something that had happened, and he was afraid he was going to jail for it.” The defendant said that he was going to be questioned because of her murder and that he was afraid he could have been the last one to see her alive. The witness indicated that during the conversation he would leave the kitchen to go to the bathroom and to check on the children as was necessary. He said that in 1978 he attached no significance to the conversation and told no one about it until the police approached him in 1982.

Roxanne Bond testified that she had known the defendant eight or nine years and that he had been “a good friend of ours,” coming by their house “every couple of days or so.” She had read about the Brown murder in the newspaper and had not heard the defendant’s conversation in her home because she was outside with her child. She did, however, once hear him say that he “had to get his story straight.”

Spencer Bond testified that he had known the defendant for 9 or 10 years, the two having met at Lewis and Clark Community College. At the time of the murder he usually saw the defendant about once a day, either at his house or the defendant’s. The witness first heard about Karla Brown’s murder from the defendant on what he recalled as a Friday night, “[a]t the most three days” after the murder occurred. Vickie and Mark White were in the kitchen of his house with him and his wife, Roxanne, when the defendant came over. The defendant said he had been at Paul Main’s house “that day” and “had talked to Karla Brown about two or three that afternoon, was supposed to go back and see her because he might have a possible date with her.” The defendant stated that he had talked with Karla Brown at her house. The defendant said further that “the girl was in a curled position stuck in a pail of water down in the basement.” The witness testified that when the defendant told him that fact, he, that is, the witness, had no idea that that was what had happened. The defendant said that “she had teeth marks on her shoulder where she had been bitten on her left shoulder,” gesturing as he made the statement. The defendant said also that the victim had been tied up. The witness stated that the defendant said that on the day of the killing “he was over at Paul Main’s house. They were over there getting drunk and getting high. Paul Main had been painting the house next door.” The defendant stated that “he had put in a few applications at work; that he had talked to Karla Brown over at her house.” Of the police the defendant said that they “were over the place and that they really fowled [sic] it up really bad; that they really didn’t know what they were doing; that there was everybody in and around the place even people that shouldn’t have been there.” The defendant stated that he and “Paul had to get their stories together as to what they were doing that day” for the reason that “they didn’t want to get conflicting statements of what their statements were so the police wouldn’t be able to crack his alibi.” Prior to the victim’s death the defendant had mentioned her name “several times” to the witness “within a few days to a few weeks before it happened.” The witness first told the police about these statements by the defendant on June 1, 1982, when the police came to talk to him. Prior to his interview by the police he had not talked to Vickie or Mark White about the defendant’s statements. At the time he talked with the police the witness said he “didn’t think I knew anything” and that before that time he did not realize the significance of the information he had.

Thereafter the witness participated in a wiretap of the defendant conducted by the police on June 2, 1982, and again on June 4, 1982, after the defendant had said he wanted to speak with Spencer Bond again about the conversation of June 2, 1982. In the first taped conversation between the defendant and Spencer Bond, the transcript of which was read to the jury, the defendant said that on the day of the murder he and Paul Main “were gett’in [sic] drunk and high the day, you know, right next door.” He said he “didn’t even know about it until a few days later in the paper. Then the third day after that an officer wanted to talk to me about it.” During the conversation the defendant said, “I never even knew the girl,” and, “I didn’t even know what her name was until I saw it in the paper.” When Bond said to the defendant, “You told me, you were the last one to see her alive or somethin [sic]. That’s why you ?,” the defendant said, “Me and Paul, we saw her putterin’ around outside and everything.” When Bond mentioned that “[t]here was something about a bucket of water was in there ?,” adding ” ? a bucket or a pail or something ? don’t remember nothing about that, huh?” the defendant responded, “Didn’t pay any attention to that even, not even when it happened, none of my business.” Shortly thereafter the defendant said, “About all I can remember of that is, ah, back in the papers were say’in [sic] ah, got put in a trash can.”

In the wiretap of June 4, 1982, the defendant initiated conversation about the case and stated that on the day of the murder he was at Paul Main’s drinking wine and smoking “a little pot on the front porch.” The defendant said he had been there “[a]pproximately eight to ten hours from ten to eleven in the morning till four, five, six, seven in the evening. He gave varying times.” According to the witness, the defendant stated that he and Paul had left Main’s house that day “a few times to get some more wine and beer.” The defendant stated that when Mark Fair arrived home, the defendant saw him

“[A]rrive and come out of the house. Then a bunch of police were there. He said three or four cops were coming around and were scrambling all around the place, and he said the ambulance came; and then when the coroner’s wagon came he said, `Wow, the girl must have been dead over there,’ and he said it’s time for him to get out of there.”

The defendant stated further that he had never been over at the victim’s house but that he could have talked to her in the walkway up to the house. Asked, “Did he say whether or not he was ever able to gain entry to the house any time that day?” the witness answered, “He said no way; that the police ? After the police got there there was no way. They sealed the premises off. There’s no way he could have even got on the property.” The defendant said that he had “never even” known Karla Brown and had seen her only “once or twice.” The defendant said that he had first found out about the killing “[a]bout three days after the murder when the police came to talk to him at his parents’ house” or else “somebody mentioned it out at his parents’ house that there was a girl killed down on Acton.”

After the second wiretap of the defendant Spencer Bond spoke with Paul Main from about 1 a.m. until about 3:30 a.m. on June 5, 1982, in a conversation wiretapped by the police. Later that day the police interviewed Paul Main for six or seven hours.

Judy Main, the wife of Paul Main, testified that the day after the police spoke with her husband on Saturday, June 5, 1982, the defendant came to their residence in Brighton while she was there to talk to her husband about the Brown murder in order to “figure out how ? what they had done” on the day of the murder. The defendant told her husband that they “had partied all day that day.” She said, “They talked at some length about the day of the murder. They tried to figure out what day of the week it was. At one point John Prante talked about the fact that Karla Brown’s murder was a capital offense and was punishable by death and that one of them would go to the gas chamber for it.” The witness and Paul Main had been married about two years at the time of trial.

Agent Rushing testified that on June 8, 1982, he, together with Chief Greer and the State’s Attorney, took the dental impressions of the defendant, of Paul Main, and of Joe Seitz to Dr. Lowell Levine in New York. In an effort to locate the defendant upon returning from New York later that day, the witness learned that the defendant had been to Paul Main’s residence on Sunday and that Paul Main’s account was different on June 8, 1982, from what it had been earlier when police had spoken with him. On June 8, 1982, Paul Main was charged with and held for obstructing justice by virtue of having lied to the police, and the defendant was arrested. Paul Main did not testify at the defendant’s trial. From the defendant’s automobile police seized two white electrical cords with no male or female ends.

Susan Lutz testified that she had met the defendant in 1980 or 1981 and that they had dated for a while. She stated that once when she and the defendant were in bed “[h]e kind of whispered in my ear that he had killed a woman.” Expressing disbelief at first, the witness later asked the defendant, “Did you really kill somebody[?]” to which he responded, “I can’t really talk about it because I’ll lose my freedom.” Asked why he had killed the woman, the defendant had answered that he was “mad.” The witness said that “there was a couple times he bit me on the neck, and it made me mad.” He had, she said, bitten her on her left shoulder.

Ada Pollard testified that on June 21, 1978, the defendant had come to her house on Hamilton Street in Wood River in the afternoon “and told us a girl had been murdered in Wood River.” She said that Paul Main arrived there later. Harold Pollard of the same address testified that he had known the defendant since approximately 1972, when they had met at Lewis and Clark College, and that in 1975 they had shared a house trailer together for about a year. He testified that it would take about 10 minutes to drive from Paul Main’s house on Acton to his mother’s house on Hamilton and about 40 minutes to walk that distance. The witness testified that on June 21, 1978, the defendant had driven to his house around 6:30 or 7 p.m. seeking tranquilizers. The witness had advised the defendant that the doctor had given him just enough for his own use and that he should see a doctor if he wanted medication. The defendant said that he did not want to see a doctor and that “he had just come from over at Paul Main’s house, and he said ? stated that the girl living next door to him had been either murdered or killed. I can’t recall the exact phrase he used.” He and the defendant talked for between a half hour and an hour. The defendant said that “there was a lot of police over there and that they made him very nervous, and he reiterated, you know, that the girl had been killed, and I ? I asked him how he knew, and he said well he says he got a glimpse of the girl by looking over the policeman’s shoulder at the crime scene.” The defendant said “that the body was found curled up on the floor with its hands tied behind its back.” The defendant stated “he had access to the view by looking around the policeman or, you know, sticking his head inside of the house or something to this effect.” The witness said, “To the best of my recollection he said he had looked over a policeman that was standing in the door. He looked over his shoulder, something to this effect.” The defendant said of his activities that day “that he had been over at Paul’s ? Paul Main’s house most of the day smoking ? smoking pot and drinking beer.” After the defendant had related this information to the witness, Paul Main arrived on foot at Harold Pollard’s residence. A day or two before the murder the defendant had told the witness, in the words of the defendant, “that a nice looking blond chick had moved in next door and that he wouldn’t mind getting some pussy off her.”

Dr. Homer Campbell, a dentist and the chief consultant in forensic dentistry for the State of New Mexico, whose area of research is photographic enhancement and its application to forensic dentistry and forensic pathology in the analysis of injury patterns, testified that, in his opinion, the injuries to the victim’s forehead, nose, and chin were caused by the base and wheels of a television tray stand. He described the human bite as ovoid in shape and stated that in a human bite most frequently only the front six teeth will mark. He said that very frequently a bite mark is “totally overlooked, or it is not recognized as an injury pattern.” In photographs of the victim, the witness identified at least three bite marks overlapping one another. On the basis of the spacing of the defendant’s teeth, which contained a space between each one of the top six front teeth, the witness was of the opinion that the defendant’s teeth were consistent with the victim’s wounds in the area of the right collarbone, photographs of which showed marks made by top front teeth with such spacing between them. The witness described Paul Main’s teeth as severely crowded with no spacing between them at all and expressed the opinion that Paul Main’s teeth could not have caused the injury pattern in question. The witness expressed the further opinion that the teeth of Joe Seitz, a model of whose teeth he had also examined, could not have caused this injury pattern. The witness testified that nothing about the quality of the photographs of the victim concerned him with regard to his opinion that the defendant’s teeth were consistent with the wounds in question. The witness indicated that anyone viewing the body, clad in the buttoned sweater and bound about the neck by the two socks tied together, could not possibly have seen the bite marks on the body because they were covered.

Dr. Lowell Levine, who was qualified as an expert in forensic dentistry, testified that there were two or three human bite marks, some of which were superimposed upon one another, shown in the photographs of the victim. The witness was of the opinion, on the basis of the spacing pattern of the defendant’s upper front teeth, that the defendant’s teeth could have caused the injury pattern in question on the victim’s body and that the teeth of Paul Main and Joe Seitz could not.

Dr. Ronald Mullen, the defendant’s dentist, testified that the defendant’s dental impressions reveal multiple spaces, called diastemata, in the upper front teeth. The witness stated that he has practiced as a dentist for 17 years and has treated 6,000 to 7,000 patients; he estimated that spacing between all six upper front teeth occurred in less than 1% of his patients. On cross-examination he estimated that he had seen such spacing “less than fifteen” times.

Commander Ralph Skinner, who was chief of police for the city of Wood River at the time of the murder, testified that on June 24, 1978, he had interviewed the defendant, who told him that he went to Paul Main’s house quite often, that he had been to Paul Main’s on the evening of June 20, 1978, when the people at 979 Acton appeared to be moving in, and that on the day of the murder he had gone to Paul Main’s house at about 8:30 a.m. to see if Main would like to go to St. Louis with the defendant to pick up some employment applications while the defendant dropped some off. The defendant had said that Main was unable to go with him, that he went alone, and that he next saw Main at about 6 p.m. at Harold Pollard’s house in Wood River. The defendant told the witness he had learned of the murder at that time, when Main told him that the girl next door had been killed, although Main did not know how she had been killed.

Eldon McEuen, an officer for the Wood River police department, testified that on July 5, 1978, he interviewed the defendant concerning the investigation. In reviewing some reports the witness had noticed “a discrepancy in some information given by Mr. Main and Mr. Prante.” The defendant told him that on the day of the murder he had placed an application with the Shell Oil Company and had then gone to Paul Main’s house to see if Main wanted to go with him to place applications for jobs elsewhere. Because Main was busy painting a house in the area, the defendant said, he left and placed some job applications in the St. Louis area, namely, Rockwell International, McDonnel Douglas, and Aerco. The witness testified:

“Well, I asked him if he had returned to Main’s house, and he told me he wasn’t sure if he did or didn’t. He couldn’t account for some of his time. The next thing he told me was he remembered he had been on Hamilton Avenue in Wood River, and Paul Main had came [sic] to that address and advised him Karla Brown had been murdered.”

On cross-examination the witness testified that the defendant had stated that he sometimes had trouble remembering things from one day to the next.

Richard White, an investigator for the Wood River police department, testified that on June 4, 1982, he and Chief Greer had gone to the defendant’s residence to obtain his cooperation with regard to the making of dental impressions of his teeth. On the way to the dentist’s office, the defendant initiated conversation concerning the case, saying

“that he remembered the Karla Brown murder and that the day that the murder occurred he remembered it because he was at Paul Main’s house. They were sitting on Paul’s front porch. I think he said they were drinking wine, and he remembered seeing the police cars come to the house, and they got up and went inside.”

The witness said that the defendant stated that he had seen the victim “that day puttering outside in the yard, but he didn’t remember what time that was he saw her.”

Agent O’Connor testified that on June 8, 1982, at about 10:30 p.m., he and Agent Rushing were at the defendant’s residence for the purpose of arresting him. After the defendant was told that he was a suspect in the case and advised of his constitutional rights, having initialed his rights to indicate his understanding of them, the defendant stated that he had contacted Don Weber, the Madison County State’s Attorney, and had “told Mr. Weber that he did not want to be considered as a suspect in the ongoing investigation, and that he also told Mr. Weber that he was at the Karla Brown residence on the day of the murder and that he had arrived sometime in the afternoon.” The defendant stated further to the witness “that when he made the phone call to Mr. Weber and advised Mr. Weber that he had been at the Karla Brown’s [sic] house on the day of the murder that since the time of that phone call that that statement was incorrect; that he had not been at Karla Brown’s residence on the day of the murder.” The defendant had said

“that the reason he had changed his mind about the conversation with Don Weber was between the time he had talked to Don Weber he had also had a conversation with a Mr. Paul Main in that a Mr. Paul Main had advised him that he was present at Karla Brown’s house the day prior to the homicide rather than the day of the homicide, sir. That was the basis for changing his statement.”

Agent Rushing testified that on June 8, 1982, at about 10:30 p.m. he and Agent O’Connor had gone to the defendant’s residence and, prior to talking with him, had advised him of his rights. The defendant was asked about his telephone conversation with the State’s Attorney in which, according to the witness, the defendant had said he did not want to be considered as a suspect in the investigation and that he had been at the victim’s residence on the day of the murder and had then said that the statement was incorrect. The witness stated that the defendant said that

“[T]o the best of his recall he was not at Paul Main’s residence, the residence adjacent to the Karla Brown residence, on the day of the murder at all; that he did not recall being there; that he was there on the day prior to which was June 20th; and he stated he recalled that now because he had been to Brighton or he had been to the Paul Main residence and talked to Paul Main, and at that time he was convinced that he was not at Paul Main’s residence on the day of the murder.”

Advised that the witness had heard him on a wiretap describe the events of the day of the murder, the defendant stated “that he didn’t care what any witness said. He was not there on the day of the murder.” The defendant said he “could not recall his location on the day of the incident. * * * He stated that he did recall putting in an application at Shell, but he was uncertain as to whether it was that day or not.” The witness testified:

“In the question we asked him if he had met her at school, and he stated that he had not; that he did not know her; that he had only seen her on one previous occasion and that was approximately a day before the murder, and she was seen out in her front yard; that he saw her out in her front yard. He did not make acquaintance with her at school.”

The defendant said “that he had not been inside the Karla Brown house at all.”

The defendant called 17 witnesses, several of whom were character witnesses who had become acquainted with him since the date of the murder. One of defendant’s witnesses was Jerry Gibson, who, in 1978, was incarcerated in the Madison County jail with Joseph Milazzo, who had stated to the witness within two months of the Brown murder that he had killed Karla Brown by strangling her. The witness said, “I forget if he said he strangled her with a scarf or pantyhose.” Milazzo apparently had indicated that he had gained access to the house through a window. The witness admitted on cross-examination that he had first told police about Milazzo’s statement when the witness was attempting to make a “deal” for himself.

The defendant put on evidence to show that he had attended Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville at various times in each year from 1975 through 1979 and in the fall of 1981 and the winter of 1982.

The defendant’s sister, Jo Ellen Brady, testified on cross-examination that about the crime the defendant had told her, “I’m probably going to get called on this one because I was right next door when it happened.” Another of defendant’s witnesses, Leonard Chairney, testified on cross-examination that the defendant had told him that he had been at Paul Main’s house on the day of the murder. Asked, “What else did he tell you about the day of the killing?” the witness answered, “He said he was at Karla Brown’s house, and that was next door, and that he was sitting on the front porch, the police came up, he left, and he didn’t do it.”

Dr. Donald Ore, a pediatric dentist who was qualified as an expert in photography, testified that in the photographs of the victim’s wounds there is no reference to scale so that they do not show the size of the victim and they do not indicate the magnitude of enlargement.

Dr. Edward Pavlec, an orthodontist, testified that because of the absence of a scale or standards he found very little evidence “to even substantiate that we have a bite mark. If we do have a bite mark, I have many points that I can’t answer; why it would make a straight line configuration, and if that is the case, if these happen to be teeth, I can’t measure the teeth because there are no scales there.” He was critical of the failure to have photographed the marks in question at right angles, which failure precludes accuracy in measurement. He expressed concern that pulling of the victim’s skin by, apparently, the pathologist at the time one of the photographs was taken could cause distortion and possibly increase the size of the spaces between the marks. He classified the photographs of the wounds in question as “one step above useless” for purposes of comparison. On cross-examination the witness stated that the defendant’s teeth could have left the mark on Karla Brown’s shoulder. On redirect examination he found that marks made by three of the defendant’s and Joe Seitz’ front teeth were “very similar.” He stated that the “[b]ite mark would have to be considered as the primary trauma in the neck area.”

Dr. Norman Sperber, a dentist in San Diego, California, who was qualified as a forensic odontologist, testified that if a picture of marks on a body is not taken at the proper angle of 90 degrees, there will be gross distortion and the mark can assume a shape other than its actual one. By way of illustration, the witness used photographs of circular labels, which appear round when the picture is taken at a 90 degree angle but which become ovoid in shape and “flatten out” when the picture is taken at a slight angle; to the extent that the camera is not perpendicular to the subject, the distortion increases. The witness stated that, in the absence of color and rulers and in the presence of distortion, the State’s black and white photographs, which he described as “dirty” photographs because of the presence of blood on the body, were “unusable” with reference to analyzing them for bite marks. On cross-examination the witness said that the defendant’s teeth could have made the marks shown on the victim’s shoulder.

The defendant testified in his own behalf that he had “virtually no memory of it, but things have come together in this last year.” He said he recalls arriving at Paul Main’s house on the morning of the murder, leaving, and then returning. He had gone to Paul Main’s to see if Main wanted to put in job applications with him. He estimated that he returned to Paul Main’s house “from about ten to twelve or one” and said that he “sat around” with Paul Main on the front porch. As to how long he was on the front porch he said, “I just ? I keep having this feeling that I was there all day; that I stayed the entire day; that it just keeps coming to mind.” He recalls that in the evening, before sundown, he left. During the time he was at Main’s he left the porch, possibly, to go to the store, to look at the house Paul was painting, and “to go inside because I remember seeing police cars pull up, and at that time it just wasn’t reasonable to sit there smoking a joint and getting ? drinking.” He stated that 3 to 10 policemen arrived and were “walking all over.” He left Paul Main’s, he said, around “4:00 or 5:00, maybe 5:30 or so, 6:00, somewhere there.” He testified:

“It keeps feeling right to say that I went to Harold’s mostly because I can recall going to Harold’s, and I can recall at another time or that time that Paul came over. This stuck in my mind that Paul showed up, and he ? he was shook to some degree, and he went on to explain more about what was going on over there at Karla’s.”

He said that the next time he heard about the death of Karla Brown was at Spencer Bond’s house “[a] matter of days, a matter of a week or so later.” The topic came up, he said because Spencer was joking, suggesting that the defendant had committed the crime. He recalled that Spencer Bond had brought the subject up “at least three or four times maybe within a month’s time.” He stated that he remembered talking to the police but was “confused about that.” When he talked to Commander Skinner shortly after the crime had occurred, he had found it difficult to remember what had happened on the day of the murder. Of the interview with Officer McEuen, the defendant recalled only being photographed. About his conversations with Spencer Bond in June of 1982 the defendant said: “He was saying things that I just never knew. He was saying things about buckets of water, and he’s saying things about bite marks, and I’m `Wait a minute, what are you talking about, man?'” The defendant indicated that Spencer Bond was threatening to go with “three or four people” to the police and that, as a result, he talked, among others, to “Mr. Weber about it, offered my help.” He had never, he said, told Susan Lutz that he had killed anybody. He stated that the wires seized from his automobile had been purchased by him in 1980 from U-Haul as a “towlight kit” in order to tow a car. He denied having killed Karla Brown.

On cross-examination he explained his statement to Commander Skinner on June 24, 1978, that he had not gone back to Paul Main’s house at all on the day of the murder by saying, “Well, it’s ? I don’t know, memory problem.” He added, “Memory or confusion.” He testified that he had never met the victim and did not know her name prior to the killing. He said he did remember “Paul coming in into Harold’s house. Be it the night of the murder, or the day after, or five ? five weeks later I’m not sure what day, but, yes, I recall Harold and me sitting around and Paul coming in and telling us about it.” He “guess[ed]” that he had first learned that Karla Brown was dead when Paul Main told him so at Harold Pollard’s. Of the conversation with Richard White on June 4, 1982, when his dental impressions were made, he said, “I don’t remember ever talking to Rick White but I do remember the incident of seeing Karla out there in the front yard puttering around the yard.” He thought that occurred on the day of the murder but did not “know.” He said the time he saw her “had to be morning or midafternoon, early afternoon. The clothes were different from what you have showed in display here though. The clothes that I remember seeing her in was white shorts and like a white flowered top.” He described with particularity the arrangement of furniture on Paul Main’s porch on the day of the murder and the direction in which he and Paul Main were facing while sitting on the porch. He admitted that he had heard in 1980 that he and Paul Main had “a conflict in statements.” He had, he recalled, told Paul Main on Sunday, June 6, 1982, that he and Paul had been sitting together on the front porch of Main’s house on the day of the murder but that Paul Main had denied that. He did not recall telling the police when he was arrested that he had not been at Karla Brown’s or Paul Main’s house on the day of the killing. He denied having told Harold Pollard that the girl next door was dead or any details about the murder; he said, “I might have told him that there’s a lot of cops around.” He said he could not believe that he had told Harold Pollard he had seen the body over a policeman’s shoulder. He described Harold Pollard as “confused.” He denied, one by one, all of the incriminating statements attributed to him by Vickie and Mark White and Spencer Bond. He denied having made the statements attributed to him by Susan Lutz and denied having bitten her. He said that John Scroggins, whom he described as a friend, had lied when he said he had introduced the defendant to the victim the day before the murder. He denied that he had been advised of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest.
The parties stipulated that certain information was published in two newspapers, the Alton Telegraph and the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. An article in the Alton Telegraph on June 22, 1978, stated that the victim was found in the utility room in the basement of her home at about 5:30 p.m. An article on June 24, 1978, stated that the victim’s body was found “partially stuffed in a barrel of water in the basement of her Wood River home” and that “[t]he body had been stuffed from the head to the waist in the barrel.”

Find-A-Grave: Karla Lou Brown
People v Prante
CrimeLibrary: Bite Marks
The All American Girl
Odontology: Bite Marks As Evidence in Criminal

’78 Karla Brown killing to be revisited

Silent Witness: The Karla Brown Murder Case
Mind Hunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit

On the Case with Paula Zahn: Profile of a Killer
Forensic Files: Body of Evidence


JohnPrante prison mug

N36343 – PRANTE, JOHN N.
Offender Status: IN CUSTODY

Date of Birth: 08/19/1949
Weight: 175 lbs.
Hair: Brown
Sex: Male
Height: 5 ft. 09 in.
Race: White
Eyes: Brown


Admission Date: 09/29/1983
Projected Parole Date: 12/09/2019
Last Paroled Date:
Projected Discharge Date: 12/09/2022

CUSTODY DATE: 06/09/1982
SENTENCE: 75 Years 0 Months 0 Days

Samantha Michelle “Shelley” Nance murder 9/10/2009 Dallas, TX *Daniel Willyam convicted, sentenced to life in prison*

Samantha Shelley Nance
Samantha Michelle “Shelley” Nance

Shelley Nance: A colorful life remembered
Art Institute of Dallas mourns student found murdered at Lake Highlands apartment
Boyfriend, his roommate questioned in Art Institute of Dallas student’s death
Suspect Named in Art Student’s Murder
Gay ex-Navy pastry chef was so obsessed with roommate that he murdered girlfriend
Testimony begins in murder trial of man accused in 2009 stabbing death of Art Institute of Dallas student
Testimony continues in murder trial of man accused of killing Art Institute of Dallas student in 2009
Day 3 of testimony underway in murder trial of man accused of stabbing Art Institute of Dallas student to death
Jury finds man guilty of murdering Art Institute of Dallas student
Man gets life for fatally stabbing Dallas art institute student
Daniel Willyam v State of Texas 2013 (conviction and sentence affirmed)

Fatal Encounters: Art Imitates Death
On the Case with Paula Zahn: The Art of Murder
Nightmare Next Door: The Art of Murder
Dateline: Infatuation (full episode)



SID Number: 08475674
TDCJ Number: 01754314
Race: A
Gender: M
DOB: 1982-11-11
Maximum Sentence Date: LIFE SENTENCE
Current Facility: BILL CLEMENTS
Projected Release Date: LIFE SENTENCE
Parole Eligibility Date: 2039-11-04

Offense History
Offense Date: 2009-09-10
Offense: MURDER
Sentence Date: 2011-11-04
County: DALLAS
Case No.: F-0960944-L
Sentence (YY-M-DD): 9999-99-99

Psycho For Love: Christopher Pugh received 6 years in prison for beating his wife Karon Pugh to death with 2 hammers


Karon Pugh
Karon Pugh

Text message led to hammer killing
Tired of violence

Fatal Vows: Your Cheatin Heart

Christopher Pugh
Christopher Pugh

Renée Olubunmi Rondeau murder 10/31/1994 Chicago, IL *Andre Griggs and Benita Johnson convicted, sentenced to prison*

Renée Rondeau
Renée Olubunmi Rondeau

Renee Olubunmi Rondeau – A Heart of Love
Illinois Victims
Renee Olubunmi Rondeau Peace Foundation
Murder: forever to forget
Birth Of A Crusade
A Rat’s Tale
1 Solid Lead Pays Off In Murder Case
Couple gets some justice
TV show to feature story of Evans High grad Renee Roundeau’s slaying

Motives and Murders: Cracking the Case: Wicked in the Windy City


BenitaJohnson prison mug

Offender Status: IN CUSTODY
Location: LINCOLN

Date of Birth: 05/23/1966
Weight: 196 lbs.
Hair: Black
Sex: Female
Height: 5 ft. 05 in.
Race: Black
Eyes: Brown


Admission Date: 05/28/1997
Projected Parole Date: 04/03/2027
Last Paroled Date:
Projected Discharge Date: 04/03/2030

CUSTODY DATE: 04/03/1995
SENTENCE: 50 Years 0 Months 0 Days

CUSTODY DATE: 04/03/1995
SENTENCE: 10 Years 0 Months 0 Days

CUSTODY DATE: 04/03/1995
SENTENCE: 10 Years 0 Months 0 Days

CUSTODY DATE: 04/03/1995
SENTENCE: 4 Years 0 Months 0 Days

CUSTODY DATE: 02/14/1995
SENTENCE: 1 Years 0 Months 0 Days

CUSTODY DATE: 02/14/1995
SENTENCE: 2 Years 0 Months 0 Days


AndreGriggs prison mug

Offender Status: IN CUSTODY

Date of Birth: 08/07/1961
Weight: 305 lbs.
Hair: Black
Sex: Male
Height: 6 ft. 00 in.
Race: Black
Eyes: Brown


Admission Date: 03/04/1997
Last Paroled Date:
Projected Discharge Date: INELIGIBLE

MITTIMUS: 95CR1415201
CUSTODY DATE: 04/16/1995

MITTIMUS: 95CR1415201
CUSTODY DATE: 04/16/1995
SENTENCE: 10 Years 0 Months 0 Days

MITTIMUS: 95CR1415201
CUSTODY DATE: 04/16/1995
SENTENCE: 10 Years 0 Months 0 Days

CUSTODY DATE: 09/08/1993
SENTENCE: 3 Years 0 Months 0 Days

Missing: Jared Hanna from Jerseyville, IL since 7/2/2011

Jack Hanna
Jared Hanna

IL State Police: Missing Persons – Jared Edward Hanna
Jared Hanna of Jerseyville missing since last weekend
Missing Jared Hanna
Jared Hanna of Jerseyville missing since last weekend
Authorities seek missing Jerseyville man
ProjectJason: Jared Hanna
New Evidence Leads To Renewed Search For Missing Jerseyville Father

Deadly Duo: Strippers Brandi Lynn Hungerford & Robert Donald Lemke II killed Rick Chance while robbing him of jewelry worth over one million dollars

Rick Chance
Rick Chance

Washington arrest made in murder case of glass pitchman Rick Chance
Witness Reports Hearing Gunshots In Chance Murder
Death of a Salesman
Fast-lane life hits dead end
Stripper pleads guilty in millionaire’s murder
Plea bargain: 2nd-degree murder in death of TV pitchman Chance
Gunman gets life in Rick Chance murder
Sentencing brings some closure for Chance family
Stripper: I thought my boyfriend was going to rob millionaire, not kill him
The Murder of Rick Chance
Wikipedia: Rick Chance

See No Evil: One Chance, On Look
Pretty Bad Girls: Hungry Heart
Snapped: Killer Couples: Brandi Hungerford and Robert Lemke
Sex, Lies, and Murder: The Stripper and the Millionaire

Brandi Lynn Hungerford – pled guilty, sentenced to 14 years in prison
Robert Donald Lemke II – pled guilty, sentenced to life in prison


BrandiHungerford prison mug

First Name: BRANDI
Birth Date: 09/27/1976
Gender: FEMALE
Height (inches): 63
Weight: 146
Hair Color: BROWN
Eye Color: BROWN
Ethnic Origin: ASIAN
Inmate/Detainee: INMATE
Sentence (yyymmdd): 014/00/00
Admission: 09/24/2007
Release Type: RECEIVED AT
Most Recent Loc.: ASPC Perryville
Last Movement: 08/31/2012
Status: ACTIVE

Commitment Information

Commit#: A03
Sentence: 0120000
Sentence County: MARICOPA
Court Cause#: 202014609
Offense Date: 08/08/2002
Sentence Status: IMPOSTED
Crime Info: D/NR
Felony Class: CL2
Ruling: N
Verified: YES

Sentence Information

Commit# Sentence yyymmdd Admit Date Consec/ Concur Release Date(s) Supervision End Sentence Expiration Flat Maximum
A01 014/00/00 09/20/2007 Supervised:08/23/2016 08/23/2018 08/23/2016
A02 012/00/00 09/20/2007 01/07/2013 08/26/2014
A03 012/00/00 09/20/2007 Concurrent:A02 01/07/2013 08/25/20


RobertLemke prison mug

Last Name: LEMKE
First Name: ROBERT
Middle Initial: D
Birth Date: 11/5/1977
Gender: MALE
Height (inches): 75
Weight: 220
Hair Color: BROWN
Eye Color: BROWN
Ethnic Origin: CAUCASION
Custody Class: 3/3
Inmate/Detainee: INMATE
Sentence: LIFE
Admission: 10/11/2007
Max End Date: LIFE
Release Type: RECEIVED AT
Most Recent Loc.: ASPC Florence
Unit: ASPC Florence East Unit
Last Movement: 11/09/2012
Status: ACTIVE

Commitment Information

Commit# Sentence Sentence County Court Cause# Offense Date Sentence Status Crime Crime Info Felony Class Ruling Verified
B02 0270000 MARICOPA 2002019002 08/08/2002 IMPOSED [1]:THEFT [2]:DANGER/ REPETIT/ ENHANCE ND/R2 CL2 N YES
B03 0250000 MARICOPA 2002019002 08/09/2002 IMPOSED [1]:THEFT [2]:DANGER/ REPETIT/ ENHANCE [3]:CONSPIRACY ND/R2 CL2 N YES

Sentence Information

Commit# Sentence yyymmdd Admit Date Consec/ Concur Release Date(s) Supervision End Sentence Expiration Flat Maximum
A01 006/06/00 06/15/2005 07/26/2008 06/30/2009
A02 006/06/00 06/15/2005 Concurrent:A01 07/26/2008 06/30/2009
B02 027/00/00 10/14/2005 Consecutive:D01 04/06/2029 02/12/2033
B03 025/00/00 10/14/2005 Concurrent:B02 07/20/2027 02/12/2031
C01 LIFE 10/11/2007 Concurrent:A01 LIFE
D01 003/06/00 01/10/2007 06/30/2006
D02 003/06/00 01/10/2007 Concurrent:D01 06/30/2006

Profile Classification

Complete Date Class. Type Cust. Risk Inst. Risk Edu. CTE. SA TX
10/26/2012 RECLASSIFICATION 3 3 0 1 0
12/16/2008 RECLASSIFICATION 4 3 0 1 0
06/03/2008 5 4 0 0 0
11/19/2007 RECLASSIFICATION 5 4 0 0 0
08/03/2006 RECLASSIFICATION 3 2 3 4 5
02/10/2006 RECLASSIFICATION 3 3 3 4 5
12/30/2005 60 DAY – NO ACTION
11/01/2005 INITIAL CLASSIFICATION 5 2 3 4 5
Disciplinary Infractions

Violation Date Infraction Verdict Date Verdict
08/17/2007 POSS/MANUF WEAPN 08/20/2007 GUILTY-MAJ.VIOL
08/07/2007 THEFT/POSSN PROP 08/13/2007 GUILTY-MAJ.VIOL
08/06/2007 SELL/TRADE SRVCS 08/08/2007 GUILTY-MIN.VIOL
04/21/2007 NOT IN AUTH AREA 04/25/2007 GUILTY-MIN.VIOL
Disciplinary Appeals 1 record(s)

Appeal Date Appeal Outcome Outcome Description As of Date
02/22/2008 2 FINDINGS UPHELD 03/08/2008

Nathan Dewitt murder 12/25/2012 Phoenix, AZ *Yo-Yo champion shot to death on Christmas, police search for suspect*

Nathan Dewitt
Nathan Dewitt

Police searching for suspect in Christmas night murder
23-year-old yo-yo champion shot and killed Christmas night
Police search for clues in Valley yo-yo champion Nathan DeWitt’s death
Phoenix police investigating fatal shooting, crash
Phoenix Are Seeking Answers In The Murder Case Of Yo-Yo Champion Nathan Dewitt
Phoenix police investigating fatal shooting, crash

Deadly Duo: Porn stars Jason Andrews & Amanda Logue killed Dennis ‘Scooter’ Abrahamsen with a sledgehammer, both sentenced to prison

Dennis Abrahamsen
Dennis ‘Scooter’ Abrahamsen

Dennis J. “Scooter” Abrahamsen obituary
Amanda Logue and Jason Andrews: Porn Stars Charged with First-Degree Murder
Porn stars accused of sex-party murder shared exploits on Twitter, text messages
Death of Pasco tattoo parlor owner remains a mystery
Georgia woman arrested in murder of New Port Richey businessman
Second porn star arrested in Pasco sex party slaying
Amanda Logue, porn actress, pleads guilty to 2010 sex party slaying
Porn actress takes plea deal in 2010 Pasco sex party slaying
Porn actor Logue gets 40 years in 2010 New Port Richey sex party slaying
Porn actress pleads guilty to murder, gets 40-year sentence
Porn actor Logue gets 40 years in 2010 New Port Richey sex party slaying
‘Snapped’ TV show to feature Pasco sex party slaying
Murderpedia: Amanda K. Logue
Florida Biker Brutally Murdered At The Hands Of Porn Star Couple

Deadly Sins: Deacon of Death
Pretty Bad Girls: Sex, Party, Murder
Snapped: Killer Couples: Amanda Logue and Jason Andrews
Sex, Lies, and Murder: The Porn Star Killer
In Ice Cold Blood: Death and Sexting
Sex and Murder: Killer Sex Party

Amanda K. “Sunny Dae” Logue – pled guilty, sentenced to 40 years in prison
Jason Andrews – pled guilty, sentenced to LWOP



%d bloggers like this: