1. Unlawful
2. killing
3. of a human
4. by another human
5. with malice aforethought.

The law was designed to define the various degrees and circumstances of murder in order to provide and achieve justice for all. Even though Blackstone did his best to dissect and define murder, in today’s society, the definition is not so clear-cut. Murder is committed and discussed daily across the United States; however, the unique situations and circumstances of each murder can ignite chaos within courtrooms. In order to ensure that justice is achieved, it is not only important to examine the circumstances under which the murder was committed, but it is key to study the state of mind of the accused.

In the United States we typically classify murder in terms of degrees. The phrase “degrees of murder” refers to the intent or severity of a particular murder charge. The most common degrees of murder are first-degree and second- degree.

The degree in which a murder is classified is highly dependent on the state in which the case is set. Specific criteria for each degree of murder are established by statute in each state and by the United States Code in federal prosecutions. In both first-degree and second-degree murder, the result is the death of another person. The main differentiating factor in the two is determining the mental state of the perpetrator at the time of the killing.

First-degree
Although it varies from state to state, first- degree murder is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated. First-degree murder involves premeditated killing, such as lying in wait for someone with a gun. State laws include a list of felonies that qualify a homicide as first degree murder. Some of these felonies include: burglary, home-invasion robbery, kidnapping, and sexual battery.

A recent example of a first degree murder case is that of Jodi Arias, who was charged in the murder of Travis Alexander. The prosecution argued that Alexander’s murder was premeditated based on the fact that before arriving at Alexander’s house, Arias rented a car, dyed her hair, turned off her cell phone—apparently to make her harder to identify, her movements harder to track. Prosecutors believed her mission was murder. Alexander ended their relationship and started dating other women. Prosecutors argued that Arias became jealous and this jealousy led to Alexander’s murder. Arias admitted to killing Alexander. She shot him in the face, stabbed him more than 20 times, and slit his throat, claiming it was in self-defense. The jury, however, found her guilty of first-degree murder.

Second-degree
Second degree murder is defined as a non-premeditated or unplanned killing, resulting from an assault in which the death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second-degree murder usually involves killing on the spur of the moment, or where the offender intends to inflict serious harm but also realizes it may cause death. Second degree murder may be caused by dangerous or reckless conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life.

A recent example of a second-degree murder conviction is that of George Huguely V. Huguely was found guilty of second-degree murder and grand larceny involving the death of his on-again off-again girlfriend, Yeardley Love. Both Huguely and Love were college seniors who played on the nationally-ranked lacrosse teams at the University of Virginia. In 2010 Love was found dead face down on her bloody pillow by a roommate. Police answered a call of an alcohol overdose but after officers saw a hole punched in her bedroom door they treated Love’s bedroom as a crime scene. Huguely told interrogators that he went to Love’s apartment that night to talk to her. He said she freaked out and they wrestled on the floor. He said he tossed her in bed and left her apartment with her computer. The medical examiner ruled she died of blunt force trauma. Huguely’s defense attorney depicted his client as a stupid, drunk “boy athlete” who was incapable of murder, though he conceded that Huguely “contributed” to Love’s death.

In addition to first and second-degree murder, we often need to examine other crimes in which a life is taken, but the circumstances do not constitute murder. These are cases of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Manslaughter
A murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter, usually based on four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction: (1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person; (2) the defendant must have actually been provoked; (3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and (4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period.

Manslaughter is defined as the unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The essential distinction between murder and manslaughter is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Taking it one step further, there are two types of manslaughter- voluntary and involuntary.

Voluntary manslaughter is intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. It is a separate concept from involuntary manslaughter and has several definitions depending on what state the crime occurs in. Federal law defines voluntary manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. Generally the term “heat of passion” refers to an irresistible emotion that an ordinarily reasonable person would explore under the same facts and circumstances.

Involuntary manslaughter is defined as unintentional killing, without intent, that is the result of recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony such as a DUI. The difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter is the absence of the intent element. To establish involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must show that the defendant acted with “culpable negligence.” Typically, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a “heat of passion” but from an improper use, reasonable care, or skill while in the commission of a lawful act or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.

Negligent Manslaughter: One form of involuntary manslaughter is criminally negligent manslaughter, often referred to as criminally negligent homicide. It occurs when death results from serious negligence, or serious recklessness. Negligent manslaughter or homicide is a lesser offense than first and second degree murder, in that the sentence will be comparable to manslaughter. U.S. states all define negligent manslaughter by statute. In some states, the offense includes the killing of another while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The post Murder? appeared first on Crime Museum.

In landmark cases, the Supreme Court set standards for pro se cases, which include boundaries for not only those individuals who choose to represent themselves, but also for the standby counsel in these particular cases.

• In Faretta v. California (1975), the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant, Anthony Faretta, had the constitutional right to refuse legal counsel and to represent himself in a state criminal trial. This case set the standards for pro se cases following it by upholding the constitutional right of an individual to represent him or herself in court. However, the Court also ruled that a defendant who voluntarily self-represents him or herself in court may not argue after the proceedings that they received ineffective counsel.
• In Mckaskle v. Wiggins (1984), the Supreme Court considered what the role of ‘standby counsel’ should be in pro se criminal cases. According to the Court, Wiggins’s sixth amendment right had not been violated by the presence of a standby counsel at his criminal trial, as he was still able to defend himself in any way he saw fit. This case established limits on the role of the standby counsel in pro se trials by refining standards that were set by Faretta.
• In Martinez v. Court of Appeal in California (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that an appellant who was the defendant of a state criminal case does not have the right to refuse the counsel of an attorney in a court of appeals; this ruling contrasts with the decision in the Faretta v. California case. The opinion of the Court was that the sixth amendment only extended to the defendant’s right to self-representation in criminal and civil cases, and that there is no such right in a court of appeals.

The post Pro Se: Representing Yourself in Court appeared first on Crime Museum.

A young Rayful Edmond, draped in expensive jewelry

An entrepreneurial prodigy, Edmond controlled most of the drug trade within the city by his early twenties, importing millions of dollars in Columbian cocaine every week. His arrest at the age of 24 in 1989 and his subsequent trial created a media circus to rival Casey Anthony’s. Jurors were kept anonymous before, during, and after the trial, and the jury box was kept behind bulletproof glass. Edmond was transported to the court everyday from the Quantico maximum-security facility (also the location of the FBI Training Academy) via helicopter. Although these measures may seem extreme, authorities fears were far from unfound.

Edmond’s gang was notoriously violent. In one year, Edmond’s “employees” committed 30 murders. At his peak, Edmond moved 2,000 keys of cocaine a week, and brought in $70 million a month. Overall, the gang is believed to have committed over 400 murders over the course of their run, not including the attempted murder of a local pastor during an anti-drug march.

Edmond was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Several members of his family also received sentences, including his mother, several of his sisters, and some of his cousins. Being incarcerated did not stop Edmond at first, however, and, along with his new contacts in prison, Edmond conducted his drug business via phone privileges. He received another 30 years sentence after his misconduct was found out. Since his second conviction, Edmond has become a government informant, and is now a part of the Federal Witness Protection Program. His current location is confidential.

The post Profiles in Crime: Rayful Edmond appeared first on Crime Museum.

Now pseudo-science, phrenology was the science of determining an individual’s personality by studying their skull. There were 27 defined areas on the skull, including one that supposedly represented the likelihood of said individual committing murder. While phrenology is no longer a valid branch of science, it paved the way for the work that forensic scientists are doing today.

An ever-changing and in flux society makes the work of a forensic anthropologist difficult. As a result of social changes, there have been subtle and gradual changes to our skeletal make-ups. Those once clearly defined markers on the skull (as well as the rest of the body) are becoming a little less definitive. It is the responsibility of scientists to grow with the times and expand their arsenal of examination in light of these events.

For many years, it has been posited that the frontal sinus pattern in the human skull is unique to an individual, similar to the idea that fingerprints and DNA are unique. In 2008, a study was published in the Journal of Forensic Science by Roberto Cameriere and colleagues, that sought to test the accuracy of this position. As an added wrinkle, they sought to measure the rate of false positives between persons that were closely related (kin) to better understand the strengths of using sinus patterns to truly identify human remains.

Cameriere x-rayed skulls of 99 individuals from 20 families between the ages of 15 and 74 (from Northern Ireland). These specimens comprised the test group. The control group was comprised of 98 Caucasian individuals, aged between 17 and 98 years. This enabled the scientists to test the effect of closely related persons for false positives. After all the skulls were radiographed and digitally imaged with both anterior (front) and posterior (back) views, they were then statistically analyzed. They used functions and probability to measure the rates of false-positives within their sample.

The results showed that even when examining individuals from the same family group the probability of falsely identifying is very small. As well, based on their results, they posited that the rate for a false positive did not change significantly when family relation was a factor. This research and its results can be helpful when trying to solve cases (especially with closely related kin) where other heavily relied upon identifying methods (DNA fingerprints, etc.) are inconclusive. These results can provide a level of comfort to the scientist(s) attempting to make identification and serve to improve accuracy in
tough cases.

The post Do You Have Your Father’s Nose? appeared first on Crime Museum.

As a result of social changes there have been subtle and gradual changes to our skeletal make-ups, making the work of a forensic anthropologist difficult. Those once clearly defined markers on the skull (as well as the rest of the body) are becoming less definitive. It is the responsibility of scientists to grow with the times and expand their arsenal of examination in light of these events.

For many years, it has been posited that the frontal sinus pattern in the human skull is unique to an individual, similar to the idea that fingerprints and DNA are unique. In 2008, a study was published in the Journal of Forensic Science by Roberto Cameriere and colleagues, that sought to test the accuracy of this position. They also sought to measure the rate of false positives between persons that were closely related (kin) to better understand the strengths of using sinus patterns to truly identify human remains.

Cameriere x-rayed skulls of 99 individuals from 20 families between the ages of 15 and 74 (from Northern Ireland). This enabled the scientists to test the effect of closely related persons for false positives. After all the skulls were radiographed and digitally imaged with both anterior (front) and posterior (back) views, they were then statistically analyzed. They used functions and probability to measure the rates of false-positives within their sample.

The results showed that even when examining individuals from the same family group the probability of falsely identifying is very small. They also posited the rate for a false positive did not change significantly when family relation was a factor. This research and its results can be helpful when trying to solve cases [especially with=”” closely=”” related=”” kin=””][/especially] where other heavily relied upon identifying methods (DNA fingerprints, etc.) are inconclusive. These results can provide a level of comfort to the scientist(s) attempting to make identification and serve to improve accuracy in tough cases.

The post Human Skulls and Forensic Anthropology appeared first on Crime Museum.

1. Antisocial Behavior
Psychopaths have a strong tendency towards antisocial behavior, so watch for extremely antisocial children. That being said, some children develop more slowly, and this is not a definitive sign. Pay attention if a child regresses from being extremely social to extremely anti-social.
Ed Gein, the inspiration for Psycho’s Norman Bates and Silence of the Lamb’s Buffalo Bill, had no social connections besides his extremely religious and abusive mother, who punished him whenever he tried to make friends. After she died in 1945, Gein began to murder and dig up graves, collecting body parts of women who looked like his mother and trying to make a “woman suit.”

2. Arson
Many serial killers start as arsonists. Arson is psychologically attractive because it involves manipulating power and control, something that serial killing also offers.
David Berkowitz, the “Son of Sam” killer, was infatuated with pyromania as a child, to the point that other children called him “Pyro.” After being arrested, he took responsibility for dozens of New York arsons. Some sources indicate that he might have been responsible for up to 1,400 fires.

3. Torturing Small Animals
This is one of the strongest warning signs. Children who torture or kill small animals like squirrels, birds, cats, and dogs without showing remorse are highly likely to be sociopaths. Many serial killers kill to control others’ lives, and as children, small animals are the only lives they have the power to control.
Cannibalistic serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer would bike around the woods as a child, collecting dead animals to dissect. Dahmer even killed and dismembered his own puppy, mounting its head on a stake when he was done.

4. Poor Family Life
Many serial killers come from unstable families with criminal, psychiatric, or alcoholic histories. These killers often have terrible relationships with their families, and often use them as their first victims.
When he was only fifteen, Ed Kemper, “the Co-ed Killer,” killed his grandparents. After being released at age twenty-one, Kemper killed six female college students. The police finally caught him when Kemper killed his violent, alcoholic mother. He treated his mother’s corpse particularly brutally, decapitating her, using her head as a dart board, and throwing her vocal cords down the garbage disposal.

5. Childhood Abuse
Many serial killers are abused – physically, psychologically, sexually – as children by a close family member. This behavior instills in the child feelings of humiliation and helpless, feelings which they will later seek to instill in their victims.
Aileen Wuornos, the prostitute serial killer portrayed by Charlize Theron in Monster, was abandoned by her mother when she was four and never met her father, who was serving time in prison for raping a seven-year-old girl when Aileen was born. Aileen’s grandfather, who took over care of Aileen when her mother left, physically and sexually abused her until she ran away at age fifteen.

6. Substance abuse
Many serial killers struggle with drug and alcohol abuse.
Jeffrey Dahmer began drinking in his teens and was an alcoholic by his high school graduation. His alcoholism resulted in both his expulsion from college and his discharge from the military.

7. Voyeurism
From a young age, many serial killers are interested in voyeurism, sado-masochistic pornography, and fetishism.
Ted Bundy claimed that, as an adolescent, he would get drunk and stalk around his community at night, looking for undressing women or other titillating sights.

8. Intelligence
Many serial killers have IQs in the “bright normal” range. Organized serial killers who kill methodically, like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy, have an average I.Q. of 113, while disorganized serial killers have an average I.Q. of 93.
Ed Kemper had an I.Q. of 136 (140 is often used as the genius mark in I.Q. tests). He used his intelligence to convince psychiatrists to release him after serving only five years for his grandparents’ murders, claiming to have reformed. He hadn’t, and he killed eight more women before being caught again.

9. Shiftlessness
Despite higher than normal intelligence, many serial killers have trouble keeping jobs or work in unskilled labor.
After leaving the military, David Berkowitz, who reportedly was of “above-average intelligence,” held several blue-collar jobs before he was captured, including his last one as a postman.

The post 9 Early Warning Signs for Serial Killers appeared first on Crime Museum.

In 1875, Reeves began his career as a deputy U.S. Marshal under the guidance of Federal Judge Isaac Parker of the Western District of Arkansas. Roaming a 75,000 mile area in what is now mostly Oklahoma, Reeves was responsible for chasing and apprehending criminals. At 6’2″ Reeves learned from the Native Americans how to make himself appear smaller on his strong white and grey horse. At times he would surprise outlaws by adopting their clothing and mannerisms. Reeves apprehended more than 3,000 outlaws and killed 14 during his time as a marshal.

The post Bass Reeves appeared first on Crime Museum.

1. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)—In what is casually known as the “Obamacare” decision, the Supreme Court limited the federal regulation of commerce, claiming that under the Commerce Clause the federal government doesn’t have the power to force states to expand their Medicaid programs under threat of stopping payments. Under the Taxing and Spending Clause, however, the federal government may levy taxes on individuals who choose not to make purchases. Lead by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court upheld the “individual mandate” within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.” Aside from securing Obama’s place within history and giving his re-election campaign a large boon, the ruling has strongly limited federal spending and its coercion of states.

2. United States v. Antoine Jones (2012)—When the local police suspected a D.C. nightclub owner, Antoine Jones, of narcotics possession, they secretly placed a global positioning system device on his car. After being convicted on the strength of that evidence, Jones appealed the use of it, claiming that the device constituted an unwarranted search. The Supreme Court agreed, and ruled that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to monitor the vehicle’s movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. This ruling is just the beginning of the legal navigations that will follow as tracking and search technology advances.

3. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012)—The Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bars the government from interfering in ministerial appointments for religious organizations, including hearing wrongful employment termination suits. Public opinion was divided on the ruling, with conservatives lauding the opinion and liberals asserting that religious organizations should abide by the same rules as other non-profits.

4. Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Graham v. Florida (2010)—In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that a sentence of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, may not be imposed on juvenile non-homicide offenders. In 2012, they expanded the decision to rule as cruel and unusual punishment mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders (including murder charges).

5. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)—In 2005, California passed a law criminalizing selling violent video games to minors. The Supreme Court struck the law down as unconstitutional, claiming that video games are protected forms of media speech, and states may not ban the sale of them to minors. The ruling sparked a large public controversy, with conservatives decrying the ruling as “disappointing,” and liberals invoking the threat to the First Amendment that the law had posed.

6. Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2010)—In the middle of a frenzied immigration reform controversy, the Supreme Court ruled that defense attorneys must inform clients of deportation and other “collateral consequences,” or civil punishments that accompany criminal charges, under three circumstances.

   1. Where the law is clear, attorneys must advise their criminal clients that deportation “will” result from a conviction.
   2. Where the immigration consequences of a conviction are unclear, attorneys must advise that deportation “may” result.
   3. When the immigration is ever in question, attorneys must inform their client; they cannot remain silent on the subject.

7. Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)—In the investigation of fatal shooting in 2000, a suspect, after being read his Miranda rights, stayed silent for three hours. At the end of three hours of fruitless interrogation, the police switched to a religious tack, asking the suspect if he prayed for forgiveness for the murders. When he answered yes, the police used the admission as incriminating evidence. The suspect appealed his conviction on the premise that by refusing to talk for three hours, he had invoked his right to remain silent and that the police had violated his Fifth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court disagreed 5-4, claiming that the right to remain silent does not exist unless the suspect invokes it. The decision was highly controversial, and critics decried the erosion of Miranda rights and coercive power the ruling gives the police.

8. Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)—In 2009, the New Haven, Connecticut fire department administered a promotional exam to 118 firefighters. The test produced racially skewed results, where all top scorers were white with the exception of two Hispanics. Not wishing to violate Title VII, the city threw out the test results and promoted no one. The twenty candidates who received the highest scores protested, eventually bringing their case in front of the Supreme Court, who ruled that municipalities may not decline to certify the results of an otherwise fair exam merely because it would have made disproportionately more white applicants eligible for promotion.

9. Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)—In a particularly brutual rape case, a man raped his eight-year-old step-daughter, causing serious internal damage, and the judge sentenced him to death. The man appealed the sentencing, claiming that capital punishment for a rape charge constituted cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Eight Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld his claim 5-4, decreeing that a death sentence may not be imposed for the crime of rape, when the victim did not die and death was not intended. The decision received criticism of both the heinous nature of the crime and the restriction of states’ rights from both presidential candidates at the time.

10. Boumediene v. Bush (2008)—In another lawsuit concerning the U.S. War on Terror and Guantanamo Bay, a prisoner challenged the United States’ right to detain him at Guantanamo Bay without a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court found that fundamental rights of the Constitution apply to the Guantanamo detainees as well, including habeas corpus.

The post Recent Supreme Court Decisions appeared first on Crime Museum.

January 30, 2014
Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were found guilty by an Italian appeals court for the 2007 murder of Knox’s roommate, Meredith Kercher.

They were first convicted of the murder in 2009 and each served four years in Italian prison; however, in 2011, an appeals court acquitted them of these charges due to a lack of evidence, and Knox returned to her hometown of Seattle.

In 2013, Italy’s Supreme Court dismissed the 2011 acquittal believing that during the appeal the court did not “consider all the evidence and discrepancies in testimony needed to be answered.” Italy’s Supreme Court designated a Florence appeals panel to further examine and reopen the case.

The retrial began on September 30th, 2013 in Florence, Italy. However, neither Knox nor Sollecito, were present at the start of the trial. Knox remained at home in Seattle throughout the entire trial, while Sollecito returned to Italy in November to defend his innocence.

After 12 hours of deliberations, the jury reinstated the original guilty verdicts against Knox and Sollecito that were given to them in the 2009 trial. The judge has sentenced Knox to 28 ½ years in prison and Sollecito to 25 years.

Knox watched the verdict live on television from her home in the U.S. and when the guilty verdict was read she said that she was “frightened and saddened” by the verdict, further commenting that “Having been found innocent before, I expected better from the Italian justice system… There has always been a marked lack of evidence. My family and I have suffered greatly from this wrongful persecution. This has gotten out of hand.”

So what happens next? The presiding judge has 90 days to write his arguments behind the jury’s guilty verdict and then the lawyers of Knox and Sollecito will have 90 days to appeal. Ted Simon, Knox’s attorney, said there will definitely be an appeal and that Knox’s extradition should not even be discussed at this time.

November 5, 2012
The past year of Amanda Knox’s life may have been better than the previous four years, but it was still far from normal.

Freed from Italian prison for now a little over a year, Amanda Knox is currently living in Seattle, lying low in a “seedy” part of town, and working on her memoir. She is dating a former boyfriend, James Terrano, a classical guitarist, and spends most of her time alone.

In September, her previous boyfriend and supposed-accomplice, Raffaele Sollecito, just completed his memoir, Honor Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox. While Knox still hasn’t given her first formal interview, considered “one of the most coveted ‘gets’ being fought over by the American networks,” Sollecito has commented on his experience extensively, even admitting to being jealous of the attention that she got. Sollecito and Knox recently met up at Knox’s grandmother’s birthday party, which helped him come to terms with the girl he once dated. Says Sollecito, he realized almost immediately after seeing her after their release that she was not the she-devil that the media played her out to be, but instead “the Amanda that [he] loved for one week.”

Knox’s book is expected to come out in spring of 2013 and will supposedly net $4 million, most of which will go towards Knox’s staggering legal fees. Until then, Knox seems content to pass unnoticed through the ethnic neighborhood of Seattle in which she lives. Not surprising, considering her nightmarish four years spent in an Italian prison. As Sollecito explained, after getting out of prison, “everything was new…[it makes you] feel like a kid inside, just discovering.”

The post Update: Amanda Knox’s Story appeared first on Crime Museum.

Chefs and Cannibals: “Over The Edge” from Tales From The French Quarter by Kalila Smith

Revenge is sweet and not fattening.
-Alfred Hitchcock

Zachary Bowen was a war hero. While serving as a military policeman in Kosovo and Iraq, he earned numerous awards for his bravery. Bowen had moved to New Orleans in the mid-ninties, leaving only to go to Iraq and returning after completing his tour of duty. During the turbulent winds of Hurricane Katrina he met and fell in love with Addie Hall. Hall offered Bowen shelter in her apartment on Gov. Nicholls Street. While the two knew each other before Katrina, the exact details of their relationship are vague.

After Katrina, the two became inseparable. They gained local notoriety for refusing to leave the Quarter after the storm, choosing instead to stand by New Orleans.

Aside from his military honors, no one knew much about Bowen’s past. He had indicated to some that he had been married at one time and had two children. He worked in a local grocery store doing deliveries and bartending part-time.

Hall and Bowen’s relationship was anything but blissful. They fought endlessly, breaking up and reconciling often. They lived troubled, chaotic lives. In the year following Katrina, Bowen was arrested for possession of marijuana and Hall for aggravated assault after pulling a weapon on a man walking in the French Quarter. A friend of Bowen’s reported that he had talked of “getting rid of her.” Many who knew Bowen claim that he often talked negatively about her, yet mysteriously remained in the relationship.

As the city recovered, Bowen and Hall’s relationship began to disintegrate further. By the end of September 2006, the two had been evicted from the Gov. Nicholls apartment and had moved to another at 826 N. Rampart Street, above the New Orleans Voodoo Spiritual Temple. At first, things appeared normal to the landlord, but by October 5, Hall had visited him requesting to have Bowen thrown out. Hall had discovered that he had been cheating on her and she had decided to end the relationship. The landlord discussed the situation with Bowen and suggested the couple try to work things out and get back to him with their decision. When the landlord didn’t hear from them again, he assumed that they made up.

On the evening of October 16, 2006, Bowen had been out drinking with a friend. He appeared to those who encountered him to be in good spirits and talked about a much needed vacation. His friend even made a comment to him about “being in paradise” the following night. But the night of October 17 turned out to be anything but a trip to paradise for Bowen.

Around 8:30 PM on October 17th, a guest at the Omni Royal Orleans, sitting in an upper level lounge, noticed the body of a man atop the roof of the parking deck. Bowen had jumped to his death from a rooftop terrace with a suicide note tucked into his pocket. His badly mangled body was covered in cigarette burns. Surveillance camera footage shows Bowen walking to the ledge several times before following through with his fateful jump.

No doubt it took some time for him to summon up his courage knowing that this would be his final moment. His suicide note revealed that, riddled with grief and guilt, he realized he could not live with himself. He felt like a failure in every aspect of his life:

I didn’t contact any of my family, so that’ll explain the shock. This is not accidental. I had to take my own life to pay for the one I took…Every last one of these [aspects] I failed at, hence the 28 cigarette burns, one for each year of my existence.

The note directed police to Bowen’s apartment, where Bowen had spray-painted his wife’s telephone number on the wall for her to be notified. Another spray-painted note directed police to a couple of large pots on top of the stove. Inside one they found the head of Addie Hall, in the other her hands and feet. A basting pan inside the oven contained her arms and legs—one had even been sprinkled with seasoning. There were chopped vegetables in a container on top of the stove.

Bowen had left details for the police in Addie’s journal:

Today is Monday 16 October, 2:00 AM. I killed her at 1:00 AM, Thursday, 5 October. I very calmly strangled her. It was very quick.

His note claimed that he had repeatedly had sex with the corpse, passing out drunk on the sofa alongside Addie’s body. The following day, he moved her body to the bathroom and began to dismember her with a handsaw and a knife. Police noted that he had attempted to clean up the bathroom. It took four days for Bowen to decide how to dispose of Addie’s chopped up remains.

He put the thermostat on 60 degrees and went about his normal routine.

Halfway through the task, I stopped and thought about what I was doing. The decision to halt the first idea and move to Plan B (the crime scene you are now in) came after awhile. I scared myself not only by the action of calmly strangling the woman I’ve loved for one and a half years, but by my entire lack of remorse. I’ve known forever how horrible a person I am (ask anyone).

An autopsy performed on Bowen showed no signs of cannibalism. No one knows what he had planned to do as he prepared Addie’s body parts to be cooked. Outside of his cryptic ranting that he left scribbled in the journal, he gave no indication to anyone that he was capable of such a heinous act.

I happened to mention to a friend that I planned to include this story in my book and he told me that he had seen the actual crime scene photos. He described a photo in which portions of her disemboweled torso lay out on the kitchen table. He said she definitely had not been charred as the media suggested, but literally cooked! He also mentioned that despite the report disclaiming any cannibalism, her legs in the pan looked as if they had been eaten partially. He made an analogy to that of a ham that had been “picked over,” revealing underlying bone.

Many people who knew Zachary Bowen said that he had suffered severe trauma during his time served in the Army. He mentioned some horrific event happening to a child that he could not erase from his memory. Clearly another instance where a once normal person simply snapped in the French Quarter. One could attribute his descent into madness to compounded post-traumatic stress disorder…or maybe a dark and evil entity had entered and resided inside of him.

Agression Cannabalism
by Jaci Seelagy

Cannibalism may be the ultimate taboo, but it occurs far more often than most people realize, and for many different reasons. A number of serial killers have practiced cannibalism (see Albert Fish or Jeffrey Dahmer); for them, an urge to consume their victims is just a step away from murder in fulfilling their desire to exercise power over life and death, to possess their victims entirely. Some believe consuming another person allows them to take on certain powers, or take on the life force of that person (see clinical vampirism, or “Renfield’s Syndrome”). But why would someone like Zachary Bowen, who killed out of anger, take the time and effort to cook his victim, even after the immediate rage has faded?

One possible answer, of course, is that cooking and eating a victim is simply a bizarre attempt to dispose of the body. This may be its purpose in the case of the Sweeney Todd-style murder by a Russian chef a few weeks ago—he killed his father-in-law during an argument, then cooked the remains into meat pies to sell to unsuspecting customers. In cases like that of Omaima Aree Nelson, however, this doesn’t seem to add up. She killed her husband—supposedly in response to systematic spousal abuse—and then cooked and ate parts of his body. She then began trying to dispose of the rest of it by taking it to various ex-boyfriends for help. Did frying his hands or dipping his ribs in barbecue sauce make it significantly easier to get rid of the evidence? Probably not.

In cases of argument-related murder that end with cooking and/or eating of the body, the motive is more likely the same as the motive for the murder itself—anger. If someone’s rage is so extreme that mere murder doesn’t satisfy it, they may try to continue expressing control and revenge by consuming their victim. It may even simply be a way to draw out the murder over time, continuing it even after the victim’s death.

Of course, Zachary Bowen committed suicide after killing his girlfriend, not exactly a sign of someone wanting to draw out his aggression as long as possible, and the autopsy was said to show no signs of actual consumption of her remains. Cooking, however, shows a clear plan to eat, so it seems he simply changed his mind. This may just be a sign of his rage running out—that it lasted several days before he stopped what he was doing and killed himself instead.

Since most crimes of passion don’t end with a barbecue, something about these killers must separate them from the killers whose anger ends just after death. Omaima Aree Nelson, like Zachary Bowen, was said to have post traumatic stress disorder—could this hinder their ability to stop at murder alone? Or is some other, more sinister influence at work?

“The Boogie Man” from Tales From The French Quarter by Kalila Smith

It is far harder to kill a phantom than a reality.
-Virginia Woolf

In May of 1918, a year and half long reign of terror struck the French Quarter leaving a trail of blood and a mystery that remains unsolved today. Many residents of the city believed the killer to be some sort of supernatural creature, others merely a psychotic serial killer with a taste for blood. The nature of the massacres indicated that the killer used an ax, giving rise to the media calling him the Axeman.

In 1911 and 1912, similar murders left forty-nine people slaughtered in their sleep across portions of Louisiana and Texas. The trail of carnage began in Rayne, Louisiana where a young woman and her three children were found slaughtered in their family home. A month later, a family of three had been found in the same manner in Crowley, Louisiana, then shortly afterwards, another four found dead in Lafayette. All of the victims were asleep when decapitated and dismembered with what appeared to be an ax.

Entire families were slaughtered mercilessly over the next year in various areas between Lafayette, Louisiana and San Antonio, Texas. The killer left a note for police at one home that read, “When He maketh the inquisition for blood, He forgetteth not the cry of the humble, human five.”

Baffled police speculated whether the killer was a man or woman and even suggested that he might be a midget. The chiseled panels in the door, which afforded entry, were not large enough for a full-grown man to fit. Some police began to blame supernatural forces. The elusive killer evaded police and continued the bloodbath accessing homes through small openings in doors hardly large enough for a child to fit into. Those lucky enough to survive described images of a shadowy or phantom-like figure seen fleeing the scenes of the crimes; one witness described a phantom that disappeared quickly, as if he had wings.

On March 14, 1919, the editor of the New Orleans Times-Picayune received a letter from the killer. It read:

Hell, March 13, 1919

Esteemed Mortal:

They have never caught me and they never will. They have never seen me, for I am invisible, even as the ether that surrounds your earth. I am not a human being, but a spirit and a demon from the hottest hell. I am what you Orleanians and your foolish police call the Axeman.

When I see fit, I shall come and claim other victims. I alone know who they shall be. I shall leave no clue except my bloody axe, besmeared with blood and brains of he whom I have sent below to keep me company.

If you wish you may tell the police to be careful not to rile me. Of course, I am a reasonable spirit. I take no offense at the way they have conducted their investigations in the past. In fact, they have been so utterly stupid as to not only amuse me, but His Satanic Majesty, Francis Josef, etc. But tell them to beware. Let them not try to discover what I am; for it were better that they were never born than to incur the wrath of the Axeman. I don‘t think there is any need of such a warning, for I feel sure the police will always dodge me, as they have in the past. They are wise and know how to keep away from all harm.

Undoubtedly, you Orleanians think of me as a most horrible murderer, which I am, but I could be much worse if I wanted to. If I wished, I could pay a visit to your city every night. At will I could slay thousands of your best citizens, for I am in close relationship with the Angel of Death.

Now, to be exact, at 12:15 (earthly time) on next Tuesday night, I am going to pass over New Orleans. In my infinite mercy, I am going to make a little proposition to you people.

Here it is:

I am very fond of jazz music, and I swear by all the devils in the nether regions that every person shall be spared in whose home a jazz band is in full swing at the time I have just mentioned. If everyone has a jazz band going, well, then, so much the better for you people. One thing is certain and that is that some of your people who do not jazz it on Tuesday night (if there be any) will get the axe.

Well, as I am cold and crave the warmth of my native Tartarus, and it is about time I leave your earthly home, I will cease my discourse. Hoping that thou wilt publish this, that it may go well with thee, I have been, am and will be the worst spirit that ever existed either in fact or realm of fancy.

The Axeman

The city followed the instructions of this maniacal killer filling homes, restaurants and the streets of the French Quarter with music. One local songwriter, Joseph Davilla, created a song called “The Mysterious Axeman’s Jazz,” which became very popular. No murders occurred that night.

The brutal killings resumed again on August 3, 1919, again maiming and killing victims ending in October that same year with the murder of grocer Mike Pepitone. The grocer’s wife and six children lay asleep in the room next door as the Axeman wielded fatal blows to his sleeping victim.

A little over a year later, the person who many believed may have been the Axeman had been shot in California. A man named Joseph Mumfre had been shot and killed by a woman, Esther Albano, AKA, Mrs. Mike Pepitone. Mumfre led a ring of blackmailers in New Orleans’ Mafia and had served time in jail beginning in 1911 at the end of the first set of murders, then released in 1918 shortly before the next. The case remains a mystery as no actual evidence ever surfaced proving that Mumfre was the Axeman. The phantom never returned to New Orleans after his murder. No one will ever know.

MO and Signature Analysis
by Tara Wright

In serial killing investigations, it is important to identify the killer’s modus operandi (MO) and signature to identify all possible crime scenes. An offender’s MO is the specific actions taken during the perpetration of a crime in order to complete that crime. Their signature is a little different. Often referred to as their ‘calling card,’ it is a specific set of indicators that point to an individual offender’s personality. These are not always necessary when identifying offenders, but can be useful when attempting to link multiple cases together.

In the early 1900s, New Orleans experienced a chain of horrific axe murders. The authorities linked the Axeman murders through several similarities in each of the cases. In all of the murders, a wooden panel was chiseled out of a back door. Also, an axe was the weapon of choice in these murders. It is hard to determine if these similarities were signatures or MO.

Many have speculated that this removal of the panel from the door was the Axeman’s way of entry into the homes. If this is the case, then the chiseling of the door is a part of his MO. But is it possible that it is his signature? Questions have arisen concerning the likelihood that a grown man could fit through small panels in order to enter the home. If chiseling the door panel wasn’t how he entered the houses, then what exactly was it? In every case, the murderer left the chisel on top of the removed panel, meaning the Axeman had to get another chisel every time he broke into someone’s home.

Serial killers’ signatures often leave the investigators confused as to their motivations. While the chisel could have been the Axeman’s modus operandi, I find it more believable that this was his signature. As an MO, it would require a lot of extra effort. In general, you would expect an offender’s MO to evolve into something that would lower the risk of apprehension and would be easier overall. I’m sure an offender would be able to think of much easier ways to break into someone’s home besides chiseling out a panel.

Weapons of choice are also possibly illuminating. While it’s difficult to know exactly why the killer selected a certain weapon, speculations can be made. What made the Axeman pick up the axe? Interestingly, he never brought the axe with him and instead found an axe, or hatchet, at the victim’s home. In his search for the axe, he probably walked past several potential weapons, like kitchen knives or shaving razors. Why not use any of these other potential weapons?

Does this automatically mean the use of an axe is his signature? Not necessarily, he could have been used to using an axe. He knew he could handle the axe well, and it would get the “job” done effectively. In this case, logical reasoning was employed to commit the murders; therefore, the use of the axe was his MO.

What if logic had nothing to do with it? Is it possible that emotional satisfaction plays a more important role in the offender’s choice of weapon? In his fantasies, the Axeman could use the axe to commit the murders. If he goes against these fantasies, it will not produce the same thrill and joy as following them exactly as he imagined. This could explain why he had to find the axe in each victim’s home. Maybe just using an axe wasn’t good enough. He even used their own axe to kill them–using their own weapon against them might add extra pleasure. If pleasure and emotional satisfaction were the factors in choosing the axe as his weapon, then the axe was more of a signature than the MO.

In the Axeman murders, it is impossible to be sure exactly what his MO and signatures were. No suspects were ever convicted so none of these questions could be answered. All that can be made are speculations based upon the several similarities in each of the murders.

However you see the Axeman—as a phantom with unknown powers, able to enter a home through the smallest of openings, or as a brutal but human madman with a creatively undetectable means of entry—the case is certainly bizarre. The Jack the Ripper-style letter submitting music requests, the strangely consistent use of an axe and a chisel at each scene… We’ll never know for certain what they mean or who the Axeman was. All we can do is speculate, and hope that history never repeats itself, carrying an axe into our homes. Keep checking the “Truly Chilling” page of the blog for more mysterious and spooky tales.
–Jaci Seelagy

The post Truly Chilling appeared first on Crime Museum.