Mindhunter, John Douglas, profiled Karla Brown’s murder to resolution. Karla Brown was born in Lima, Ohio. Her family initially lived in a trailer home. Karla and her two older sisters were great students and skilled cheerleaders. After high school, Karla and her fiancé, Mark Fair, bought a small one-story house. They would live there for less than 2 days. Karla was described attractive and petite at 4’11” and not more than 100 pounds. On June 21, 1978, at about 5:45 p.m. the police department of Wood River (Madison County, Illinois) received a call to come to 979 Acton concerning the death of Karla Brown. Mark Fair and his friend Thomas Feigenbaum returned to the home, Mark and Karla had moved into only the day before. Mark cried and held Karla’s body. He found Karla naked from the waist down in the laundry room in the basement. Karla’s head had been immersed in water in a large metal lard can. The container 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. (Karla wouldn’t have put on this sweater. She only wore the sweater for social occasions in cold weather.) Two men's socks, tied together, were tied tightly around her neck. She had a large cut on her forehead, a cut on her nose, and a gash on her chin. It was clear Karla had fought the killer intensely. The couch in the basement was blood soaked, and blood was splattered on the basement floor. The killer had poured a large amount of water on the couch and scene. The entrance at the rear of the house lead directly to the basement. The police secured the crime scene. All of the State's witnesses at the scene testified that, with the exception of Mark Fair and Thomas Feigenbaum, only medical and law-enforcement personnel were at the scene. (This becomes significant as this foils the killer’s appeal.) All of the fingerprints at the scene belonged to Karla, with the exception of one. That fingerprint was not matched. (The defense would argue that if the person convicted had committed the crime his fingerprints should have been at the scene. The reality is that 73% of the time there are no useable prints, beyond the victim’s, at a crime scene.) After 4 years the case went cold. Investigators turned to the FBI, and they had the opportunity to work with profiling legend, John Douglas. Douglas served as a sniper in the FBI, and later became a hostage negotiator. He transferred to the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) in 1977 where he taught hostage negotiation and applied criminal psychology at the Academy in Quantico, Virginia to new FBI special agents, field agents, and police officers from all over the United States. John Douglas created the FBI's Criminal Profiling Program, now called the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), and was later promoted to unit chief of the Investigative Support Unit, a division of the FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC). The Netflix show Mindhunter is about John Douglas. After reviewing the crime and the evidence John Douglas gave the following profile: The Killer was: In his 20’s to 30’s Likely already interviewed by the police. Someone who may have passed a polygraph. A sloppy dresser Someone who lived in the neighborhood. Someone who would drive a red Volkswagen. ~~~~~~~All were ultimately correct! John Scroggins, who knew both Karla Brown and John Prante, testified that on the afternoon before the murder, he and Prante had been at a neighbor’s home, at which time Scroggins introduced Karla to Prante. John Prante afterward, on that same day, expressed his sexual interest in Karla. At 9:00 a.m. Karla had called Helen Fair, her fiancé’s mother. Helen returned her call between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. The conversation was interrupted by Karla saying, "Helen, someone is at the door, and I'll call you back." When Helen did not hear from the Karla, she tried to call her between 12:00 and 12:30 p.m., but there was no answer. It is significant to note that John Prante wasn’t the initial prime suspect, so the case was not investigated from the perspective that he was guilty. 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 indicated that the marks, on Karla’s right collarbone, were bite marks. Prior to this time no one had recognized the injury as bite marks. Green forensic light system On June 2, 1982, following exhumation of the body, Dr. Mary Case performed an autopsy. She found that the jawbone had been broken in two places by a single blow and that the skull had been injured by three blows of significant force with a blunt instrument. Dr. Case 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. (Here is where the case gets tricky. Bite mark evidence is not conclusive. It’s not like DNA. The investigative show on this case suggests that matching Prante’s teeth to the bitemark solved the case. That’s not true as the jury wasn’t certain about the validity of bite mark comparison. But it is true that the bitemark may have helped solved the case in another manner. You’ll read about it in the next paragraph.) Vickie and Mark White testified that 3 days after the murder they had been visiting with John Prante and he began talking about Karla Brown’s murder. Prante told them Karla was found in a curled-up position with teeth marks on her shoulder. Prante told them she had been drowned in her basement. (This is evidence that had not been released. Keep in mind, it wasn’t until three years after the murder, that medical examiners realized they were teeth marks. Prante would later appeal his convictions arguing bitemarks are difficult to match. The appellate judge ruled it wasn’t the bitemark match that got him convicted. He would later argue that he had seen the victim over a police officer’s shoulders at the scene. But they already had witnesses testifying it was only Karla’s fiancé and his friend at the scene.) Spencer Bond testified that on the Friday after the murder John Prante told him "the girl was in a curled position stuck in a pail of water down in the basement." Prante had said that "she had teeth marks on her shoulder where she had been bitten on her left shoulder," gesturing as he made the statement. Prante also told him the victim had been tied up. (Once again, these details had not been made public.) Prante said that on the day of the killing he was at the house next door to Karl and was getting drunk and high. Susan Lutz had dated John Prante after the murder. Susan stated that Prance once “whispered in my ear that he had killed a woman." Expressing disbelief at first, she asked him, "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, Prante answered that he was "mad." Susan said that "there was a couple times he bit me on the neck, and it made me mad." Prante had bitten her on her left shoulder, similar to his murder victim. Ada Pollard testified that on June 21, 1978, John Prante came over seeking tranquilizers. Prante said a girl had been killed, and she asked him how he knew, he said, “got a glimpse of the girl by looking over the policeman's shoulder at the crime scene. The body was found curled up on the floor with its hands tied behind its back." Prante revealed "that he had been over at Paul's — Paul Main's house most of the day smoking— smoking pot and drinking beer." Further, Prante had previously commented that he wanted to be sexual with the victim. (It had been clarified that John Prante wasn’t at the scene after the police arrived.) Following a three-week jury trial in July of 1983, John Prante, was found guilty of the murder of Karla Brown and sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a term of 75 years. There was no useable DNA evidence collected, as DNA wouldn’t be used in a criminal case in the United States until 1986 John Prante appealed his conviction based on the bite-mark evidence used against him, but the appeal was denied. His attorney’s criticism of the bite-mark evidence was not enough to warrant a successive appeal because there was other evidence that pointed to Prante. (For example, Prante’s telling others about the facts of the case before it was public information.) Jurors paid little attention to the bite-mark evidence even though, at the time, the evidence attracted national attention. At the time of John Prante’s sentence, the Truth-in-Sentencing law was not in effect, so Prante was allowed a day off his sentence for every “good” day he served. Prante served 36 years in prison. He was released in December of 2019. On January 24, 2022, John Prante was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated. Investigative shows pursued John Douglas for his forensic interview tapes. (You can see the recorder on the table here in this Mindhunter episode.) But John Douglas didn’t record his interviews as he felt offenders wouldn’t be honest if he did. He further pointed out the importance of evidence, stating, “I don’t believe in self-reporting. These guys, they’ll lie to you. They lie to me. They won’t lie to you if they realize that you have studied their crime inside and out, and you’re not being antagonistic. You’re not shocked or offended.” Thanks for listening, Frank Saturday, April 27, 2024, Forensic Psychologist, Frank F. Weber, will be at Jack Pine Brewery, speaking from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. on the writing of true crime, and forensic work, The Haunted House of Hillman {H2 OH} is a true story that involved teens daring each other to return to the rural home of an unsolved crime. Frank will share the amazing stories of victim survival that led to the resolution of this true crime thriller. Frank will demonstrate a lie detector test (volunteer a friend). You will also get some information on his next release (in June), Scandal of Vandals. Frank will be at Jack Pine from 3:00 to 8:00 p.m. signing and selling his books and answering questions on the latest forensic tools. Jack Pine Brewery is located at: 15593 Edgewood Drive North, Baxter, Minnesota, 56425.
0 Comments
|
AuthorFrank F. Weber is a forensic psychologist specializing in homicide and sexual and physical assault cases. He uses his unique understanding of how predator’s think, knowledge of victim trauma, actual court cases, and passion for writing true crime thrillers. His Award Winning books include "Murder Book" (2017) "The I-94 Murders" (2018) "Last Call" (2019) and "Lying Close" (September 2020). Archives
April 2024
Categories |