Showing posts with label 20th Century murder cases. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 20th Century murder cases. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

College Station Man Awaiting Trial For Maryland Murder

A 19-year-old College Station man accused of first degree murder for a Maryland cold case will be in court on December 9th for a motions hearing.

Justin Hadel is charged with the murder of 26-year-old Christine Marie Sheddy who had been reported missing in 2007. Maryland authorities say, at the time of Sheddy's death, Hadel was 17-years-old.

Authorities say Sheddy's skeletal remains were discovered in March near an Inn where she had been a guest, along with Hadel.

Maryland prosecutors say Sheddy died of blunt force trauma and tips from witnesses led them to the shallow grave where she had been buried.

Since his arrest, Hadel has been extradited to Maryland and has been in jail, without bond. Hadel's trial is scheduled to start on February 8, 2011.

www.kbtx.com

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Two Women's Death Row Cases Are Similar

Richmond, Va. -- Marilyn Kay Plantz, executed in 2001 by the state of Oklahoma, persuaded her younger lover and his pal to kill her husband for insurance money and stood by as they brutally did so.

Two years later, Teresa Lewis of Pittsylvania County wound up on Virginia's death row for a strikingly similar crime.

More than 1,200 men have been executed in the U.S., since the death penalty resumed in 1977. If she is put to death as scheduled Sept. 23, Lewis will be just the 12th woman and the first in Virginia in almost a century.

It is a gender gap that largely, if not entirely, can be explained by the relatively few capital crimes committed by women.

The accompanying acts that frequently qualify murders as death-eligible crimes -- such as rape and armed robbery -- overwhelmingly are committed by men.

Mary Atwell, a professor of criminal justice at Radford University and author of "Wretched Sisters: Gender and Capital Punishment," says it is no accident that Lewis, Plantz and their crimes have much in common.

Like many of their male counterparts, females sentenced to death often have histories of substance abuse and mental-health issues.

Unlike men, women usually kill intimates, not strangers. So, too, did Plantz and Lewis.

"There are so many similarities it's almost uncanny," Atwell said. Among other things, she said, "both of these women had borderline mental retardation and yet they were accused of being the mastermind in the case."

Masterminds or not, the murders were savage.

Plantz's husband, James, 33, had $300,000 in life insurance. Court records show that when he returned home early one morning, he was beaten with baseball bats by his wife's lover, William Bryson, and his friend Clinton McKimble, both 18.

Plantz, in her late 20s, was in a bedroom. Her husband still was alive when Bryson and McKimble later set him on fire in his pickup truck.

In Lewis' case, the court records show she persuaded Matthew Shallenberger, with whom she had a sexual relationship, and his friend, Rodney Fuller, to murder her husband, Julian Clifton Lewis,Jr., 51.

Her husband's son from a prior marriage, Charles J. Lewis, a soldier visiting home, had a $250,000 life insurance policy that Teresa Lewis would receive if the two men died.

It took repeated shotgun blasts to kill the father and son in their beds early on the morning of Oct. 30, 2002, while Lewis waited in the kitchen of the family's Pittsylvania trailer. She provided the $1,200 to buy the murder weapons and left the trailer door unlocked so the killers could enter.

Atwell said insurance money often is the motive in cases where women face the death penalty, and it appears to be one of the things that courts consider a vile aspect of such crimes, she said.

"Maybe because it's a sort of betrayal of trust," she said.

In Virginia, before imposing a death sentence, a judge or jury must decide if a killer remains so dangerous that he or she requires execution, or that the crime was so vile that it warrants execution.

Lewis, Shallenberger and Fuller all pleaded guilty, Fuller with the understanding he would receive life in exchange for his cooperation.

Before sentencing Shallenberger on July 11, 2003, Judge Charles Strauss said, "This is a murder for hire which, just the thought of that, sends chills through most of us."

But, Strauss said, "it's not just a business killing. This is a murder that involves so many other things. . . . It's laced with nightmarish violations of trust, respect, love, the bonds of matrimony that existed between Mr. and Mrs. Lewis for a man she vowed to love and cherish.

"There is no question in the court's eyes that she is clearly the head of this serpent."

Strauss said he could not sentence Shallenberger to death if the other shooter received life.

Lewis, said Strauss, "was in a league all her own." The judge said of the crime, "Unfortunately it reminds us of what man is capable of doing, even to ones they're intimate with."

Atwell said that if there is sometimes a reluctance to sentence women to death, "the other side of that issue is that when a woman is perceived by a court -- judge, jury, prosecutors, whoever -- as having really violated what I call 'gender expectations,' that that makes her more worthy of death."

Among other things, Plantz and Lewis both were cheating on their husbands with younger men.

"The vileness standard is subjective," Atwell said. If a murder is particularly vile, she contends, "it could be more of an argument for punishing the actual killer. In these cases, the 'vileness' was connected to the idea of being a 'mastermind' of a merciless killing, and it is doubtful that either woman could be a mastermind."

David N. Grimes, the Pittsylvania commonwealth's attorney, strongly disagrees where Lewis is concerned.

"If there's a hierarchy of evil among the three, I had no question that she was at the top, with Shallenberger fairly close behind," he said. Grimes also sought the death penalty for Shallenberger.

"She manipulated them and manipulated the whole works. She is the one who determined how they would be killed and when they would be killed."

Shallenberger was 22 at the time, Fuller was 19, and neither had much of a criminal record. Lewis was 33 and had been convicted of forging a prescription.

If nothing else, Lewis might have saved her wounded husband's life by promptly reporting the shootings, which were staged to look like a robbery, Grimes said.

"It was the better part of an hour before she even called," he said. "She was calling it in like there was an intruder who had done all this and didn't mention to anybody that the husband was still alive and that he might need medical help," he said.

"We believe he was conscious throughout and horribly wounded and possibly could have been saved. He died from blood loss; he didn't die from any particular organ being damaged."

Atwell says that while Lewis "may have set the events in motion and delayed in calling for help, the real brutality was done by others."

Lewis' lawyers contend that Shallenberger, who committed suicide in prison in 2006, was the mastermind and have a letter he wrote in which he says the crime was his idea.

They argue that Lewis, who has a low IQ and a personality disorder, could not have been the mastermind, and an affidavit from Fuller says Shallenberger was in charge of Lewis.

Her lawyers cite the cases of two Virginia women who committed similar crimes and received life sentences.

According to the evidence, in addition to her relationship with Shallenberger, Lewis also had sex with Fuller, as did Lewis' then-16-year-old daughter.

After her husband was shot but still was alive, Lewis entered the bedroom, retrieved his pants and wallet, and divided the money with Shallenberger and Fuller.

"The women who are executed, in every case, they've been portrayed in the court and in the press usually as not real women -- they were promiscuous, they were bad mothers, they violated the norms that were expected of women. Not only did they kill . . . but they did something that was beyond what a normal woman would do," Atwell said.

"It's not just that she killed her husband, but she violated all these other rules of behavior as well," Atwell said of Lewis.

Grimes, however, sees ample cause for a death sentence for her role in the murders alone.

Lewis' lawyers will not permit her to be interviewed by the news media. She is being held in segregation at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women. She has an appeal and request for a stay of execution before the U.S. Supreme Court and a clemency petition before Gov. Bob McDonnell.

Fuller, an inmate at Sussex I State prison, declined to be interviewed.

www.timesdispatch.com

Sunday, August 8, 2010

2 Charged In Murders Of Maryland Family Members

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Manson Follower Leslie Van Houten Seeks Parole For 19th Time

LOS ANGELES (AP)-- Leslie Van Houten, the one-time Charles Manson follower long seen as the most likely of his ex-acolytes to win freedom someday, faces her 19th parole hearing today with a new lawyer and new case law which may give her the best chance yet for release.

Even if there is a finding of suitability for parole at the hearing, freedom would not be immediate. The entire state parole board would review the decision within 120 days and it would then be submitted to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for a final ruling.

Van Houten, 60, remains incarcerated at the California Institution for Women at Frontera, the same prison where another Manson follower, Patricia Krenwinkle, is imprisoned. Susan Atkins, the third woman convicted of murder in the crimes directed by cult leader Manson, died in prison last year after parole officials denied her dying request for freedom.

Van Houten last appeared before a parole board in 2007. Her chances for parole are enhanced by the fact that she has been discipline free since her incarceration in the early 1970s, has positive psychological reports and has been active in self-help groups at the prison including "Golden Girls," a group for elderly women inmates.

She has a new lawyer, Brandie Devall, who told The Associated Press she will refer to rulings by the California Supreme Court in 2008 and 2009 affecting standards for parole.

Most significant is the case of Sandra Lawrence, a convicted murderer who was paroled after 23 years in prison after the court held that to refuse parole there must be evidence that a prisoner is currently a danger to public safety. The court said the board could not base a refusal only on the details of the crime committed by the inmate long ago.

Devall said the finding has also been upheld in federal court.

Another recent case, she said, deals with inmates who are between 16 and 20-years-old at the time of their crimes and holds that they are more likely to be rehabilitated.

Van Houten was 19 when she joined other members of the Manson cult in the killings of Leno and Rosemary La Bianca.

Devall said the cases she will cite had not been decided at the time of Van Houten's last parole hearing. She said she will cite Van Houten's age, her youth at the time of the crimes and her extreme remorse. "There is no evidence of current dangerousness," she said.

The prosecutor who will argue against Van Houten's parole, Patrick Sequiera, did not return calls to the AP.

Van Houten was convicted of murder and conspiracy for her role in the slayings of the wealthy grocers. The La Biancas were stabbed to death in August 1969, one night after Manson's followers killed actress Sharon Tate and four others including celebrity hairdresser Jay Sebring, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, filmmaker Voityck Frykowksi and Steven Parent, a friend of the Tate estate's caretaker.

Van Houten did not participate in the Tate killings but went along the next night when the La Biancas were slain in their home. During the penalty phase of her trial she confessed to joining in stabbing Mrs. La Bianca after she was dead.

The Tate-La Bianca killings became one of the most notorious murder cases of the 20th Century and continues to rivet public attention 41 years later.

In past parole hearings Van Houten has apologized to the victims' families and expressed remorse for her actions.

If she is refused parole, it is uncertain when she would get another chance. Under a new law, the board can set the length of time between parole hearings at 3, 5, 7, 10 or 15 years. Prison officials said Van Houten is in good health.

www.timesdispatch.com