Part 10 in a serialization of interviews published on the 26th anniversary of the brutal murder of Donna Johnson:
Richard Walter:
Richard Walter is a forensic psychologist, criminal profiler and member of The Vidocq Society.
“Since 2005, I have talked with the sheriff (Larry Waller) and former sheriff Buice, about going over the pieces in the Donna Johnson case. I think that in 2005, if they (the investigators and district attorney) did not understand the scenario, then it becomes ‘just information.’
Richard Walter (left) and Richard Milam.
So, the did it to document files and not to solve this case.
"...and could result in an acquittal at trial.
Then you could have a killer who could go on TV and tell everybody how he did it, and there would not be a thing we could do about it, because of the rule of double jeopardy.”
Milam is an idiot. He's scared to lose. I won't vote for him again.
Why would Milam have to request the GBI to continue to do some recent interviews. If the case is still open and assigned to a GBI Agent it would seem that the GBI would want to do more interviews on their own, or do they just work on it when Milam tells them to do so.
Vote, vote often and never vote for Milam again or Waller again.
Need new people with fresh mind to work on this case.
Mr. Walter is a very intelligent and well qualified individual and it is insulting to think our DA and our local law enforcement are not listening to this man.
Please pray that someone will do the right thing here.
1. There is no DNA evidence
2. There isnt really any evidence at all
3. The time of death is disputed, which means
that several people either didnt really see
Donna and or the spouses alibi and
statement is not the truth.
Questions:
1. Does the "suspect" have a lawyer now and
cannot be questioned further?
2. Was the suspect ever given a polygraph
test? Can the results be used in a trial?
3. Who were the wittnesses that stated they saw
Donna at different times that day? Were they
kin or friends of the "suspect?"
Perhaps you might use Dictionary.com to look up the meaning of the word libel?
Here, I'll help
libel [ˈlaɪbəl]
n
1. (Law) Law
a. the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or printed statement, picture, etc.
b. the act of publishing such matter
2. any defamatory or unflattering representation or statement
Unless you have a large sum of money that you aren't using, I would suggest discontinuing encouragement of a potentially expensive activity.
And while you at it, look up slander as well.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
test? Can the results be used in a trial?
The results can only be used it the prosecution AND defense both agree.
Well, what exactly is the problem with reaching them? When I try to get my phone repaired I have the pleasure of leaving messages with people in India in order to get a call back. But they call back. Have Joe Buice call them for you, Larry. You are an elected sheriff man, can't you handle the telephone? Have you no clout at all? At least tell them you know Joe, maybe they will answer you then. Then we have our Pike County Police Chief, Chuck Ledbetter, who cannot talk because Lamar County sheriff Larry Waller will not let him. I wish Merrill Greathouse were still alive, he could tell some facts, he wasn't scared. Richard Walter, Vidocq Society has pointed out that 70% of all murder cases in the United States are based on circumstantial evidence. Because murder is not a spectator sport. Here is the way I visualize circumstantial evidence. I just cooked a beautiful three layer chocolate cake. There are only three people in the house my husband, my grandson,and myself. My husband and I do not eat chocolate. I look around, my cake has a thin, long, swipe taken out of the chocolate icing. Chocolate is all around my Grandson's mouth and on his finger that he is trying desperately to lick off. NOW, who do you think may have committed this little sneaky act? He didn't confess and I did not see him do it. That nasty old circumstantial evidence. Richard Milam, just a heads up for you here, Donna Johnson is not going to be knocking on your door to give you any videos of the murder. You all take all the evidence you got. Go to a little town (WAY OFF), get twelve people with a full set of chromosomes to listen to all your facts change the names to protect the innocent/guilty and see what the strangers come up with. It would just be interesting to know. Want some cake?
This is stupid. Walter, call the FBI and send them everything you have. They can come in on cases like this without being invited. Screw these local idiots.
You remind me of those old women who are so busy living in misery that they feel it's their God given (NOT) right to spread misery all around you.
"The trial of Scott Peterson for the murders of his wife Laci and their unborn child Conner is a classic example of a prosecution based almost solely on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence."
read more here: http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/scott040718.htm
THERE JUST ISN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE. This is unfortunate, but it is the truth. Had there been enough, it would have gone forward. You can not do like the former sheriff and just go out and arrest someone because you "think" they did something, or because "I'm the damn sheriff" or whatever. You are bound by judicial canons to practice law in an ethical and professional manner.
Take the emotion out of it, the facts are there, unless some new, compelling information comes forth, there just isn't enough for a successful prosecution, it isn't the DA's fault, it isn't the GBI's fault, they are just going over what was presented to them, which is unfortunately not substatial.
It's just really hard for the public to understand Milam's thinking that just because Milam is the D.A. and what he perceives of the evidence presented that he doesn't want to go forward with it. Maybe we'll get a new D.A. and hope that person will see all this compiled and now documented files in a different light than Milam does and we'll get it to a grand jury. Then we'll see what happens from there. One can always hope and anything is possible.
DA's fault?
Also, and this may surprise you, but nobody owes you any answers.
Fact#2: Her Father has since passed away.
Fact#3: Her Mother has since passed away.
Fact#4: Her murder(s) have not been brought to trial.
Fact#5: That bothers this old Bitch.
There is your quote above Linda. If Donna had been your daughter, sister, wife, loved one? Would twenty-six years seem like a long time to you? I know you have your panties in a wad about Joe Buice but forget about Joe and let's worry about Becky and Jimmy who are the last two closest loved ones to this brutally murdered girl. It does not really matter who was, is, or will be sheriff. This is about a brutally murdered girl. A young girl. Read the facts again, Linda. Sheriff's are not the priority of the moment. If you want to be pissed off fuss about Walter Geiger...he is the one who stoked the fire that never should have gone out in the first place. We all failed Miss Beulah...Read that again. Damn the sheriffs...let's find some facts and murderers. Deal?
While we are on our pleasant dialogue here, are you worried about someone going free or going to jail? Because, I honestly have not heard of a suspect's name. Do you have one in mind?
Would be great if something could be done to find the true killer without using assumption and hocus-pocus technology, but lets be realistic.
Have a good day.
The panties is just a "phrase often used and I think you know what I mean." I have not waltzed around her husbands name. I have specifically pointed out in at least three or four articles that I DO NOT think Jimmy killed Donna. I have no trouble at all spitting things out that I have on my mind...none at all. I want the guilty parties caught also, certainly not innocent ones. But no action would be stirred up now without the concern that Walter created when he penned the heart-touching obit for Miss Beulah. If Donna were my daughter and I knew for sure who(s) killed her. I would vigilante their a$$ so full of holes I would have to borrow more bullets from The Afghan Army. What would you do? Turn them over to these sheriffs that everyone is cursing for one reason or another? It looks like we agree on the basic here, THAT THE GUILTY SHOULD BE PUNISHED. Let me move on down to this Anonymous Idiot #21 and try to explain what I mean by the chocolate cake. Sorry, if I have offended with you with the panty line.
I would love a sheriff and/or DA who would use every option when dealing with a man who would do something like this to ANYONE. This is not someone who just lost it and shot someone. This was methodical. This person is a psychopathic sadist murderer. This person would be someone who statistically would re-offend. There is no telling what else he has done. Let the FBI come in and exhume her again if Becky agrees. Beg them to help us find justice for Donna. It's been 26 years. You've had your chance for 26 years for goodness sake. If you insist that there is not enough evidence after 26 YEARS, maybe it's time for a different agency to give it a shot. Let them all do something amazing and work TOGETHER to solve this. Waller, GBI, FBI, Milam will all score points in my book if they can get this done no matter who gets to claim it in the end. WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE SELFISH MOTIVES??
I thought I was pointing out that circumstantial evidence is not necessarily unimportant evidence. My teenage son started using skoal smokeless tobacco many years ago. I noticed as I was folding his jeans that there was a perfectly round worn circle in the right rear pocket of his jeans. When I confronted him, he told me that he just carried skoal around for his friend, that he did not use skoal. What do you believe? Do you rekon my sweet little teenager that I love dearly was a'usin that old nasty skoal? Or was it just circle-stantial circumstantial evidence? All I know is, when I told him I would start buying him polyester pants so that his buddy's skoal would not ruin his pants as easy...that skoal found another hiding place.
(I said I do not eat chocolate, I did not say I did not check to taste that the icing turned out good. I just licked mine off my finger quicker than my grandson.) OOPS! You blew your case Lawyer Anonymous.
Richard Milam
Sheriff Waller
GBI Person
ETC.
Circumstantial evidence is about as useful in court as heresay is.
Thought you were smart enough to have known that already, but I guess I gave you too much credit.
Everyone needs to stop the BS and come together to stop a SICK killer. He could be at home right now thinking about your sister, mother or daughter and how hot it would be to hog-tie her just so before he rapes her. He's probably planned already how he'd take her to the dump where she's belonged all alone in his opinion.
To him, women are good for nothing except being maids and sex objects anyway. Screw all the old, armchair quarterbacking, nagging women on here talking smack about catching him, right??
I see some strong women on this forum. Strong women that sign their names. You call them whatever you want, but they won't take your crap. Is that what you are afraid of? A strong woman you can't control, manipulate and use?
I wish the killer could be thrown in some place with sociopaths like him and die in the exact same way Donna did. He deserves no less. He is a monster and anyone who does not think so is sick too.
Stop the stupid arguing and find this man.
Walter, don't be compliant with those who want you to shut up and get over it. We should never stop this hunt. Buice, Waller, GBI, FBI, Walter all need to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, My Lord.
How petty and childish for people to come here argue over who screwed what up and who gets credit for solving this or that. Stop distracting from the crazy psycho.
Walter, call the FBI if no one else will.
Ever heard of "I object" before?
Circumstantial evidence can happen to anyone, guilty or innocent. You've never been at the wrong place at the wrong time inadverdantly? I wish the killer could have been found, tried and convicted years ago, but unfortunately it may never happen. Trying to make evidence out of very little offered is not what ethical, intelligent people would do.
Miss tolley, you sure are into this a lot more than the average person, thats obviously not too good for your mental health and well being, but good luck in your endeavors. Retired and lonesome?
You obviously know nothing about trying a criminal case.
Arguing against us "old, armchair quarterbacking women" about this can be bad for your mental health. Maybe you should stop and go find another place t be unhelpful.
How do you even know what evidence they have and if it would hold up in court?? You don't.
One recent example of use of circumstantial evidence was the trial of Scott Lee Peterson, where the evidence presented was essentially circumstantial. A day after reporting that his eight-months pregnant wife was missing (December 23, 2002), Peterson was considered a suspect, because investigators found he had several extra-marital affairs since his marriage, and had recently been in a relationship with another woman. Petersen alleged that at the time of his wife's disappearance he was fishing at the Berkeley Marina, and was innocent. In April 2003, the remains of an unborn baby and the partial remains of a woman were found on the shores of the San Francisco Bay. Autopsy and other forensic tests identified the remains as those of his wife and her baby, although where, how, and when she died was not specifically determined. THE FBI and forensic teams conducted extensive investigations at the Petersons' house, as well as searching Scott Peterson's boat, truck, toolbox, clothes, and personal objects, in search of forensic evidence of violence such as bloodstains or weapons. No physical piece of forensic evidence was identified that could link Peterson to the murder of his wife.
Although the prosecution could not present any physical evidence of Peterson's involvement with the crime, and the defense tried to defuse the circumstantial evidence, in November 2004, the jury convicted Scott Peterson of first degree murder for killing the wife "with special circumstances," and of second degree murder for killing his unborn baby. That December, the jury recommended a death sentence for Scott Peterson. In a press conference, the jurors declared that they had found Peterson guilty, in part, because of his demeanor. Circumstantial evidence including Peterson's change in haircut and color immediately after the crime, buying a car in his mother's name, and testimony by his ex-lover that he frequently lied and said he was a widower previous to the crime, weighed heavily with the jury.
NOW STFU and take some legal courses.
You fail.
YOU CAN NOT BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
"I object" -sustained-
People with real experience in the legal field know this better than old ladies that sit home and watch CSI, Matlock and lookup stuff on wikipedia for their "facts".
Your rants on here will do nothing to help with the unsolved case. If you truly want to help, why not pay to hire a private investigator with real experience instead of wearing out your keyboard with all these baseless assumptions and attacks? I'll bet it could be money well spent, and that would certianally produce more results than a bunch of bored cackling hens would.
Sure beats this soap opera mess.
He likely has re-offended and may be on a sex offender registry for some type of sexual crime.
There are experts out there that would know these things. Was the knot used the best knot for hog-tying someone or a knot best used for a fishing hook?
When you get multiple big red arrows pointing at 1 or 2 people, that is evidence. You don't have to have something forensic. What do you think they did before DNA and blood types? Turn every criminal loose?
It is the RIGHT thing to do.
In my opinion, if I were called for a grand Jury, I would true bill this case if the evidence all pointed to one particular person or group of people. At the grand jury, by the way, the defense would not be able to argue their case. Motions to dismiss evidence wouldn't come until pre-trial. If evidence gets thrown out for whatever reason, ok. Dis-miss the charges and you are back to right where we are now. Ta-Da. Tell me what doesn't make sense about that?
Why does it make you so angry??
You have no clue how much I know or the education I have.
Why should someone pay for a private investigator when there are already people that can do this at our disposal?
I bet it would be easier to discredit a private investigator at trial. The FBI has highly qualified experts.
Heck, maybe everyone thinks one person did it, but that person may just be as scared as the rest of us.
Go ahead and call them up and ask for their assistance, it can't hurt to try, but it is highly doubtful that they would try to get involved with a local homicide that took place over 20 years ago, that obviously wasn't under threir jurisdiction in the first place.
Has anyone given serious thought to hiring a P.I. that could actually do a lot of good, and could eventually help obtain the answers you so desire? I am not trying to insinuate that I hope the fbi doesn't get involved, if they will come, then great, but it is highly doubtful they will, and I am just looking at this in a realistic nature.
Signed - Tax paying, voting Citizen
Believe me there is only one answer and you know it.
Regardless, they are both good men who have served our district well, regardless of your ever changing opinions.
This Richard Walter guy is a member of Vidocq. He's one of 82 inducted into this society- picked from a pool of the tens of thousands of investigators, profilers and forensic psychologists all over the world. This guy is no small potatoes. He's seen his share of complex murder cases- I dare-say he's seen ten times as many as Milam will ever see.
This guy has seen every detail of the case- every interview, every bit of evidence, every photo. If anybody knows when there's sufficient evidence to present to a Grand Jury, don't you think somebody like Walter would be qualified to make that call? Walter says he begged them to open the case to the Grand Jury. WHY does Milam continue to ignore the judgement of a world-renowned expert?
Also, everybody seems concerned with the possibility of an aquittal and double-jeopardy. If the Grand Jury finds there isn't sufficient evidence to go to trial, that's not the same as a "not-guilty" verdict- just means they have to gather some more evidence before they bring it to trial. What would be the harm in presenting it to the GJ to see what they say?