Deadly Wives: Tianle “Heidi” Li killed her husband, Xiaoye “Alex” Wang; Sentenced to life in prison

dvawareness3

Xiaoye Alex Wang
Xiaoye “Alex” Wang

N.J. Chemist Accused Of Poisoning Husband With Thallium
NJ Chemist Charged With Husband’s Fatal Poisoning
New Jersey Chemist Convicted of Poisoning Husband
Chemist Who Worked at Squibb Found Guilty of Poisoning Husband
Life In Prison For N.J. Chemist Who Poisoned, Killed Husband
Tianle Li, N.J. chemist, convicted of fatally poisoning husband
N.J. woman sentenced to life in prison for fatally poisoning husband with thallium
Why Thallium Is Known as the “Poisoner’s Poison”
The Chemist as Murderer
Murderpedia: Tianle Li

Movies/Documentaries
How (not) To Kill Your Husband: Hell Over Heels

INMATE INFORMATION

Tianle Li prison mug

Tianle Li
SBI Number: 000203931D
Sentenced as: Li, Tianle
Race: Asian or Pacific Islander
Ethnicity: Asian
Sex: Female
Hair Color: Brown
Eye Color: Brown
Height: 5’3″
Weight: 128 lbs.
Birth Date: April 7, 1970
Admission Date: September 30, 2013
Current Facility: EMCF
Current Max Release Date: N/A
Current Parole Eligibility Date: N/A

Li sentence info

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movies/Documentaries
Redrum: O Come All Ye UnFaithful

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

INMATE INFORMATION

Donna Arnold

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

Most Recent Incarceration Summary

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

Sentencing Information:

Donna Arnold sentence info

INMATE INFORMATION

Carl Stuffel

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

Most Recent Incarceration Summary

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

Sentencing Information:

Carl Stuffel sentence info

Deadly Wives: Shriya Patel killed her husband, Bimal Patel, by setting the house on fire; Sentenced to 20 years in prison

dvawareness3

Bimal Patel
Bimal Patel

Find-A-Grave: Bimal Patel
Burn victim dies 5 months after he was allegedly set on fire by wife
Shriya Patel: Husband She Was Accused of Torching in April Has Died
Man, set on fire, dies after five-month battle with burns
Jurors hear from first responders who found Bimal Patel severely burned, screaming
Jury deliberating in capital murder trial
Shriya Patel given 20 years in 2012 arson death of her husband
Patel sentenced to 20 years in husband’s bathtub burning death
Shriya Patel Found Guilty of Arson, Not Capital Murder, Gets 20 Years
Woman, 27, who burned husband to death after luring him into a bathtub for a massage found NOT GUILTY of capital murder

Movies/Documentaries
Snapped: Shriya Patel

INMATE INFORMATION

Shriya Patel

SID Number: 50047215
TDCJ Number: 01915596
Name: PATEL, SHRIYA BIMAN
Race: I
Gender: F
DOB: 1986-09-17
Maximum Sentence Date: 2032-04-18
Current Facility: MARLIN
Projected Release Date: 2032-04-18
Parole Eligibility Date: 2014-08-08

Offense History
Offense Date: 2012-04-17
Offense: ARSON CAUSING DEATH
Sentence Date: 2014-03-11
County: TRAVIS
Case No.: D-1-DC-12-900230
Sentence (YY-MM-DD): 20-00-00

Last Parole Decision
Denied on 09/30/2014

NEXT REVIEW (09/2016)- Deny favorable parole action and set for next review.
Denial reason(s): 2D

* Note: One or more of the components indicated in each paragraph may apply, but only one is required for denial (D).

2D NATURE OF OFFENSE – THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE INMATE COMMITTED ONE OR MORE VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTS INDICATING A CONSCIOUS DISREGARD FOR THE LIVES, SAFETY, OR PROPERTY OF OTHERS; OR THE INSTANT OFFENSE OR PATTERN OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY HAS ELEMENTS OF BRUTALITY, VIOLENCE, OR CONSCIOUS SELECTION OF VICTIM’S VULNERABILITY SUCH THAT THE INMATE POSES A CONTINUING THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY; OR THE RECORD INDICATES USE OF A WEAPON.

Next Parole Review Date
09/2016

Deadly Wives: Nancy Kissel *The Milkshake Murder*

dvawareness3

Robert Kissel
Robert Kissel

Hong Kong confronts the two Mrs Kissels
‘Milkshake Murderer’ Nancy Kissel Loses Final Bid for Appeal
Kissel bid to appeal against second murder conviction
Kissel’s new appeal bid blasted by her in-law
Hong Kong rejects American Nancy Kissel’s final appeal bid in “milkshake murder” case
No Regrets for Kissel 11 Years After Banker-Husband Death
An affair, a milkshake and a guilty verdict
Two Kissels, Two Murders
Murderpedia: Nancy Ann Kissel
Wikipedia: Murder of Robert Kissel
Blood Brothers
Kissels Of Death
The $18 Million Orphans

Books
A Family Cursed: The Kissell Dynasty, a Gilded Fortune, and Two Brutal Murders
Never Enough

Movies/Documentaries
Dateline: Blood Brothers/The Milk Shake Murders
The Two Mr. Kissels
48 Hours: Blood and Money
Deadly Concoction

Nancy Kissel
Nancy Kissel

Deadly Wives: Thu Huong Thi Nguyen convicted of killing her husband, Thai Van Le; Sentencing will be May 4

dvawareness3

1801 W. Park Blvd
1801 W. Park Blvd

Neighbors try to stop van with fatal stabbing victim inside
WVC police make arrest in homicide investigation
Woman charged with murder in stabbing of boyfriend
Utah woman fatally stabs boyfriend during Labor Day barbecue
Half of Utah’s 2013 homicides involved family members, personal relationships
Woman accused of killing husband to stand trial for murder
Jury finds WVC woman guilty of murdering husband
Jury finds woman accused of stabbing boyfriend while he was holding their baby guilty of murder
West Valley woman convicted in boyfriend’s stabbing death at barbecue

INMATE INFORMATION

Thu Huong Thi Nguyen

Name: THU HUONG THI NGUYEN
Sex: F
Age: 42
Height: 505
Weight: 145
Race: ASIAN
Hair Color: BROWN
Eye Color: BROWN

Inmate Information
Booking #: 13045423
SO#: 292068
State ID: 1083340
FBI 761923XA5
Citizen: UNITED STATES
COB: VIETNAM

Incarceration Information
Current Location: MAIN
County: SALT LAKE
Current Housing Section: 07
Current Housing Block: B
Current Housing Cell: 30
Current Housing Bed: A
Booked Date: 09/03/2013
Release Date:

Alias Information
THU HUONG THI NGUYEN
THU HUONG-THI NGUYEN
HUONG NGUYEN
HUONG THU THI NGUYEN
THI NGUYEN

Bond Information
Case #: 131908468
Amount: $1,000,007.00
Status: Open Posted By:
Post Date: 09/10/2013

Charge Information
Case # Offense Date Code Description Grade Degree
131908468 09/10/2013 76.5.203 Homicide/Murder F 1
131908468 09/03/2013 76.5.202 Agg murder F 1
131908468 09/03/2013 76.8.306.3a Obstruction of Justice F 2
131908468 09/03/2013 76.5.109.1.3.A Domestic violence in presence of child F 3
131908468 09/10/2013 76.8.306.3a Obstruction of Justice F 2
131908468 09/10/2013 76.5.109.1.3.A Domestic violence in presence of child F 3

Deadly Wives: Susan Fortune Embert charged with the murder of her husband, Jake Embert

dvawareness3

Jake Embert
Jake Embert

William B. “Jake” Embert obituary
Justice for Jake: The murder indictment
Woman indicted in husband’s death
Murder suspect Embert signs extradition papers
Wife charged with husband’s murder back in Georgia
A former Albany woman indicted on murder charge in husband’s death

SusanEmbert
Susan Embert

Deadly Wives: Tammy Holman got her lover, Charles Miller, to kill her husband, Larry Holman

dvawareness3

Hunting death becomes murder probe
Woman is accused in death of husband
“Deer Hunter” Murder Beginning In Cape Girardeau
Wife pleads guilty to conspiracy in husband’s killing
Jefferson County man sentenced to prison time
Charles L. Miller v Missouri Department of Corrections 2009 (affirmed)

Defendants
Tammy Holman – pled guilty, sentenced to 7 years in prison
Charles Miller – pled guilty, sentenced to 25 years in prison

INMATE INFORMATION

CharlesMiller prison mug

DOC Id 1101043
Offender Name Charles L Miller
Race White
Sex Male
Date of Birth 08/05/1953
Height/Weight 5’8″ / 155
Hair/Eyes Brown /Green
Assigned Location South Central Correctional Center
Address 255 West Highway 32, Licking, MO 65542
Assigned Officer Phone Number (573) 674-4470
Sentence Summary 25 Years (25, 25 CC)
Active Offenses MURDER 2ND DEGREE;ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION
Completed Offenses Completed sentence not found
Aliases Charles L Miller

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,343 other followers

%d bloggers like this: