Category Archives: True Crime

Originally posted August 17, 1998; transferred to this site.

In 1963, Life magazine ran a story about Marie Noe, a Philadelphia housewife and part-time factory worker, who had lost six of her children during infancy. None of them lived beyond the age of seven months. To secure her position as the most bereaved mother in America, two more babies were to die–one in 1966, and the last one in 1968.

Now, more than thirty years after the final death, Mrs. Noe, 69, was arrested at her home August 5th, and charged with first-degree murder –accused of smothering eight of her children to death with a pillow or another soft object. In her statement, Noe admitted that she smothered four of the eight, but didn’t remember the specifics concerning the other four.

Mrs. Noe was not charged in the deaths of two of her children. Letitia was stillborn in 1959. Theresa suffered complications from birth in 1963 and lived only six hours. Police said there was no reason to suspect foul play.

Autopsies were performed on all of the children except one, but at the time, doctors could not offer any conclusive medical explanation about why the babies died.

After medical experts defined SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) in 1969, doctors believed that was how Mrs. Noe’s babies died, according to court documents.

The case had never been closed, but the investigation into the deaths intensified recently because of heightened interest in the unexplained deaths of children and developments in medical and forensic science.

The mystery of multiple baby deaths in one family might have remained hidden forever, were it not for the case of a Syracuse, N.Y., woman named Waneta Hoyt, who appeared to have lost five babies to SIDS during the 1960s. In 1994, Hoyt confessed to having smothered the babies and was charged with murder.

That led to the book “The Death of Innocents,” in which authors Richard Firstman and Jamie Talan called attention to the Hoyts and several other infanticide cases that had first been attributed to SIDS. In so doing, they rekindled 30-year-old suspicions over the multiple Noe baby deaths.

Neither police nor the district attorney would speculate on a motive, though they said the Noes had taken out insurance policies on six of the children.

Some excerpts from the police affidavit for the arrest of Marie Noe are enlightening:

All of the babies were normal at birth and all of them were healthy and developing normally. All of the 8 infants were in the exclusive custody of the mother, Marie Noe, at the family home at the time of their deaths. All 8 infants were described by the mother . . . as gasping for breath and turning blue. . . . “All 8 infants were pronounced dead on arrival at the various hospitals where they were taken. Upon pronouncement of death, there was no physical evidence of trauma and no reasonable medical explanation nor any finding of natural disease. . . .

“. . . As to Infant #5, Constance Noe, Dr. Abraham Perlman was interviewed on April 14, 1998. Dr. Perlman indicated that he was working in the Pediatrics Department at St. Luke’s Hospital in February 1958 and he remembers attending and treating a newborn baby by the name of Constance Noe. . . .

Due to the history of the previous four deaths in the family, Dr. Perlman ordered extensive studies for Constance Noe and all of them came back normal. Upon discharge from the hospital, Dr. Perlman told Mrs. Noe that Constance Noe was a beautiful baby. Marie Noe responded: ‘She’s not going to live . . . just like the others.’

Dr. Stephen Ludwig [ a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia ] . . . was consulted concerning the history of crib deaths. . . . Dr. Ludwig indicated that in the 1950s and 1960s, the medical community had always been apprehensive of making accusations of parents in cases involving the unexplained deaths of infants. . . . He indicated that the medical community has now acknowledged that one of the provable explanations for SIDS is really infanticide. . . .

“Dr. Ludwig reviewed all of the investigation reports, the death certificates and the available autopsy reports as to all 8 of the Noe infants that died in the exclusive custody of Marie Noe and has concluded that the actual cause of death . . . was suffocation and the manner of death is homicide.”

What are we to make of this?

Sadly, the doctrine of “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” took a very long time to manifest itself. But then, contemplating that a mother would murder her own offspring had little precedent. (Remember, this was before Roe v. Wade).

It seems clear that once SIDS was defined, it became a syndrome in search of victims, all too often. Only recently, certain unusual viral infections have been identified, which provide a much more reasonable cause of death scenario in certain cases.

Medical orthodoxy can lead otherwise intelligent physicians to really put on the blinders. Shingles (herpes zoster) was traditionally characterized as a disease that only appeared in severely immune compromised individuals–elderly types waiting to die in nursing homes, for example.

The problem is that about 10 years ago, otherwise healthy children and adults started presenting with Shingles. Is our immune response deteriorating for some reason?

At this moment, a cutting edge treatment for autism involves modulating the immune system of affected individuals. Meanwhile, the establishment autism gurus argue the finer points of various “accepted” therapies, which basically don’t work.

It’s high time that we open our minds–medically, forensically, socially, culturally, and historically.

Originally posted December 3, 2001; transferred to this site.

On June 13th, while driving in Hollywood, former Noxzema girl and actress Rebecca Gayheart noticed that a line of cars had stopped in front of her. Blissfully disregarding that these cars were probably stopped for a good reason, she swerved into a two-way left-turn lane, at 40 miles per hour, to go around them. She would discover soon enough that the cars had stopped to allow nine-year-old Jorge Cruz, Jr. to cross the street. The car she was driving struck the young boy, who died the next morning.

On September 18th, a charge of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence was filed against Gayheart. She pleaded no contest, and on November 27th was sentenced to three years’ probation, the suspension of her driver’s license, a small fine, 750 hours of community service, and was ordered to produce a safe-driving video.

Interestingly, some weeks before the charges were filed, on August 6th, the boy’s parents, Jorge Cruz and Silvia Martinez, brought a wrongful death lawsuit against Gayheart and Marco Leonardi, the owner of the car she was driving. Thus, well-known plaintiff’s attorney Steven Lerman is being pitted against well-known celebrity defense attorney Harland Braun.

Gayheart was so chastised because of the criminal charges and the boy’s death, that on October 1st, she flipped her rental car into two parked vehicles. Poor baby. Her father actually commented: “Luckily, this time Rebecca only suffered a cut lip, but it could have been far worse. No trip to the grocery store is worth this.” And what about a boy’s life?

It is easy enough to dismiss this tragedy as just another rotten LA story. The annals of Hollywood sleaze are chock full of tales of celebrities killing nobodies or even other celebs–sometimes willfully–and getting away with it. But this one touches on too many contemporary issues to pass by.

Overwhelmingly, the media ignored the dead child, and painted Gayheart as the victim, who must now “suffer” for the rest of her life, with this sad incident on her conscience. Much was made of her paying for the medical and funeral expenses, and her tears (shed just at the right moments) during her sentencing. That she is an actress, and was clearly plying her craft in court, seemed to be missed by all the elite media outlets.

Then there’s the matter of Jorge Jr.’s illegitimacy. Exactly when were his parents going to get married? Were they even together before all this happened? They surely DID get together for the big lawsuit.

On the other hand, Gayheart’s parents are together, and have clearly been close to her, spoiling her, and are making excuses for her even now. Since the October 1st accident, Rebecca’s mother has been chauffeuring her around. One might think that being 29 and having plenty of money would equip Rebecca to take care of herself–but why should she start now?

Try to put aside the celebrity mythology, the lawsuit, and the wrist-slap sentencing. Turn your thoughts instead to the dead boy. Rebecca Gayheart should have stopped and waited, but made the fateful decision to go around those other cars. One of the first things taught to all prospective drivers, especially in California, is to NEVER pass a line of stopped cars, since they are very likely stopped for a pedestrian. Gayheart, though, was in a hurry.

Perhaps, she was heading to take a meeting about some new project, to round out her oeuvre, that already contains such classics as Scream 2 (1997), Urban Legends (1998), Shadow Hours (2000), and From Dusk Till Dawn 3 (2000). We should note that she started her career inauspiciously with Whatever Happened to Mason Reese (1990).

No doubt, the world needs much more of Ms. Gayheart, and the sooner the better.

As for Jorge Cruz, Jr., and what he could have contributed to the world, we will never know. But as to how much he is worth, and what he will contribute to his parents and Steven Lerman, we will find out in due course.

Originally posted June 12, 2000; transferred to this site

This was by no means the first celebrated case of an obviously guilty defendant getting away with murder.

In August, 1892, there was Lizzie Borden.

In June, 1994, there was O.J. Simpson.

However, this would be the first known case in which the perp admitted killing the victim, was found guilty, and STILL got away with it. But, we’re jumping a little ahead of ourselves…

Susan Cummings is the daughter of the late former CIA agent and billionaire international arms dealer, Samuel Cummings. Cummings’ company, Interarms, is certainly an equal opportunity supplier. In one widely publicized example, he furnished weapons to rightist Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista, and then to Fidel Castro, the Communist dictator who overthrew him.

Susan Cummings and her twin sister Diana grew up in Monaco and Switzerland, and in the early 1980’s moved to Fauquier County, Virginia, about one hour west of Washington, DC. Since they both loved horses, their father bought them Ashland Farm, a 350-acre estate, and stocked it with some of the finest equine specimens.

Fauquier County is big-time horse country, and polo is a major activity. The folks here can afford the best, and the world’s best polo players come from Argentina. One of those imported Argentines was Roberto Villegas.

Villegas and Cummings met at the Willow Run Polo School in 1995, and subsequently fell in love. At some point, Roberto moved in with her.

Fast forward to September 7, 1997. Susan shoots Roberto four times, killing him instantly. She makes a 911 call, about 30 minutes after the incident, and is soon arrested and charged with first degree murder.

Like the OJ case, there is overwhelming forensic evidence proving her guilt. She claims self-defense, pointing to slashes on her arm, but these are easily shown to be self-inflicted. Moreover, the crime scenario is quite clearly established whereby Villegas is seated, eating breakfast, when he is shot.

Far from being a sugar mommy, the heiress is revealed instead to be incredibly cheap. She refused to let Roberto install an answering machine, since that would only encourage expensive call-backs. When his father died, he had to sell a horse and his truck to finance the trip back to Argentina. By all accounts, he tolerates her miserly ways, but gets the full dose of her wrath when he purchases a leaf- blower (for $108) on the estate account, to ease the burden of an old lady hired to sweep the long driveway. Cummings earnestly believed that a broom was perfectly adequate.

Cummings retains a good old Virginia boy, Blair Howard, as her defense counsel. Howard can’t refute the evidence against her, so instead urges the jury to disregard “cold photographs and scientific theory,” and focus on “human emotion.” Sound a little like Johnnie Cochran?

Howard puts forth a very weak case of uncorroborated threats and abuse, contradicted by Susan and Roberto being seen in public happily together, a scant two days before the murder. There is also a series of suspiciously contrived abuse reports, filed by Susan with the local sheriff, to lay some sort of groundwork for a self-defense plea.

It seems like an open and shut case.

On May 13, 1998, the jury does return a guilty verdict–for voluntary manslaughter–recommending a sentence of 60 days in the county jail, and a fine of $2500. So that’s what a human life is worth!

With time off for good behavior, Cummings serves 51 days.

As if this weren’t bad enough, Sheriff Joe Higgs empties the jail while Susan does her time. After all, those in for longer sentences for less serious crimes (nearly all of the inmates) might take offense to Cummings’ special treatment. You think?

Here’s the reason why this case is far more egregious (to use a favorite lawyer word) than Simpson or Borden. At least, those perps were acquitted. The Cummings case, and its wrist slap guilty verdict, is nothing more than a giant middle finger cast toward the American system of jurisprudence, now undoubtedly damaged beyond repair.

In this most recent chapter of the saga of senseless violence, 32 students and faculty perished on 16 April 2007. The perp was a—stop me if you’ve heard this before—disaffected loner, who harbored much resentment, and blamed others for his supposed misfortune.

While there has been a flood of media coverage, and countless would-be sages have weighed in on this incident, allow me a few thoughts…

Bearing in mind that details are still sketchy—perhaps on purpose—the biggest administrative mistake was to treat the earlier dorm killings as some sort of isolated incident. I’m really trying to understand this mindset. Two homicides occur on campus. The offender is at large, and it is just business as usual?

Forget about the prospect of a follow-up mass killing spree. What about the possibility of a shoot-out in the middle of the campus? How difficult would it have been to temporarily close the campus, and bar entrance and exit, if for no other reason than to aid in capturing the perp of the dorm murders? And think about this: The homicides occur at around 7 AM in a busy college dorm. Exactly how does Mr. Cho effect his escape from this building? Are we expected to believe that in the ensuing interviews, which would have occurred before the second shooting, that no one saw anything suspicious, or could even provide a description?

What happened here? Were the kids in the dorm that detached, or were they hiding in fear, behind locked doors? Did no one even peer out a window to observe someone who must have been nervously looking about as he made good his exit? Is anyone else concerned about this first crime scene with hundreds of potential witnesses, that came to naught?

Then there’s the theme of abdication of responsibility, and this does not only mean the perp, who blamed others in his notorious video. At the very least, Virginia Tech president Charles W. Steger could have admitted that he had failed the victims and their families. However, as is becoming far too common, Steger treated the incident as if it were some kind of natural disaster that could only be reacted to, and could never have been prevented or even mitigated.

Did George W. Bush ever admit that he had failed us in 9/11? Why do we speak of the Cuban Missile Crisis as something that JFK “handled” rather than essentially caused?

One reason is that the abdication of responsibility is the fundamental precept of our overarching government. The greater the personal responsibility, the less the need for the nanny state. It is not easy to determine if the leadership is simply trying to pull the wool over our eyes, or really believes all the bull. I would argue that most politicians these days are probably quite sincere in their misguided contention that the State is always the answer, given three full generations of the Federal Leviathan.

Thus, the immediate calls for more gun control in the wake of this incident. But, there were many more patterned responses.

Since the perp was a Korean immigrant, there were remarks about excessive immigration and too much diversity. Pat Buchanan did make a good point about an overabundance of tolerance being given to the aberrant. Cho had a long history of being a sociopath, yet no matter what he did, there were no consequences, at least until poet Nikki Giovanni got him kicked out of her class at V-Tech. Even then, though, this was more a case of NIMBY (not in my backyard) than actually doing anything constructive about this misfit. One can’t help but wonder what would have happened if the class were taught by someone less famous.

Giovanni told the press that after she heard about the shootings, she was sure that Cho was the perp. Unsettling enough for you? Oddly reminiscent of FBI agents talking about their pre-September 11th investigations into the 9/11 perps that were blown off?

Perhaps that will put to rest all the foolish clamoring for insight into why Cho did what he did. Clearly, knowing what creates a mass killer is pointless if nothing is done as the signs manifest themselves.

Is it more than a coincidence that in the same week as the V-Tech shootings, our Supreme Court finally pulls in the reins on partial birth abortion? This, of course, was followed by the chorus of all the genteel proponents of this barbarous technique, telling women how their rights are being taken away from them.

Just keep that in mind next time there is a tragedy like the one at V-Tech, when someone asks you about the value of human life. Based on the pro-aborts’ reaction to the Supreme Court decision, and knowing that nothing will change as a result of this latest massacre, I’d say it is damned little.

Even the 3000 deaths of 9/11 brought us only Kabuki Theater airport security, joined at the hip to an incredibly lax immigration and enforcement policy. You’d think that protecting the public safety would be the most basic function of government—but you’d be wrong. Its most basic, and its only function now is to grow. It knows that most of the public will soon get over this week’s tragedy, but if it doesn’t, the net result is just the accumulation of more power.

For those chronological chauvinists who think that the OJ trial set the standard for defense chicanery, prosecutorial malfeasance, lurid details, and an obviously guilty perp who walked, I have two words for you: Candy Mossler.

Early in the morning of June 29, 1964, Candy’s multimillionaire husband Jacques (24 years older than her) is found dead in his Key Biscayne, FL condo. Jacques has 39 knife wounds, as well as blunt force trauma to the head. Conveniently enough, Candy had gone—accompanied by four of her children—to a local hospital emergency room at 1:00 AM, seeking treatment for a severe migraine headache, and upon her return finds Jacques dead.

Apparently unhampered by the horror of the incident, to say nothing of grief, Candy quickly posits her theory of the crime. It seems that as a consequence of a respiratory illness Jacques suffered in 1962, he became homosexual, and the homicide must be a result of a gay lover’s rage.

The cops actually look into this angle, but soon abandon it in favor of a far more likely suspect: Melvin Lane Powers, son of Candy’s older sister. Powers had been more or less adopted by the Mosslers in 1961, while they were living in the Houston area. At the time, Powers was 20, but could have passed for a good deal older, given his large build and swarthy appearance. Aunt Candy was 42.

For his recuperation, Jacques traveled to Europe, and was spending more time at the Florida condo, to take advantage of the cleaner ocean air. With the big cat away, the mice did play, and Candy pursued an incestuous relationship with her young nephew back in Houston.

By the spring of 1963, Jacques found out about the affair, and kicked Powers out of the house, and out of the position he had in one of Jacques’ businesses. Powers uttered a menacing threat upon his exit. Jacques moved to Key Biscayne, Candy stayed in the Houston mansion, and Powers took an apartment in Houston. Divorce is not an option for either Mossler, based on the pre-nup.

The overkill nature of the homicide suggests an emotional or sexual connection between the offender and the victim, and suspicion falls on Mossler’s wife and her lover. On July 3rd, the very day of Jacques’ funeral, a warrant is issued for Powers, and the Texas Rangers arrest him at his business outside of Houston.

Circumstantial evidence includes a palm print from Powers in the Key Biscayne condo, and travel records showing Powers arriving in Miami just before the murder, and returning to Houston hours afterward. A rental car used by Powers—and provided by Candy—is identified as one that was spotted at the murder scene. Multiple fingerprints from Powers are in the car, along with traces of blood. Blood stains also appear on the trousers worn by Powers upon his return to Houston.

Candy hires big gun defense attorney Percy Foreman to take the case, and puts up her jewelry collection to support the $200,000 retainer he demands. Jacques then is paying for the defense of his accused murderer. Candy decides that things are getting a bit too hot, and blows town for medical treatment at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN.

However, details begin to emerge in the media replete with photographic records of the lovers together, murder solicitations by the lovebirds, and even Powers’ assertion that he could get anything from Candy by performing oral sex on her. Awaiting what will be a joint trial, they are both out on bond, with Mel keeping it low key in Atlanta, and Candy doing her Southun belle act in Houston. Of course, even she can’t deny the affair anymore.

The trial begins on January 17, 1966 in Miami, and is covered by dozens of media outlets, many of whose reporters are overly taken with Candy and her transparently faux charms. The purple prose put forth by Paul Holmes of the Chicago Tribune is simply embarrassing.

“She is remarkable for her poise, her wealth, her tenacious hold on the vestiges of a varnished youth, and the bouncy, unquenchable optimism with which she cheerfully faces an ordeal that will surely tarnish her and could end in a one-way walk to Florida’s death chamber. She is remarkable for an outgoing disposition which makes it appear she seeks friends for friendship only and neither needs nor wants sympathy. She is remarkable for her gaiety, her ceaseless effervescence, and for an underlying, alert intelligence that is her ultimate armor.”

Foreman’s defense consists mostly of attacking the victim, and promising lurid details of his homosexuality, which never come. The prosecution has an excellent case against Powers, and a somewhat weaker one against Candy, although it does not take much imagination to conjure up a motive. Inexplicably, Candy’s quite incriminating diary as well as a letter to Candy from an incarcerated Powers are ruled inadmissible.

However, the prosecution puts a stake through the heart of its own case by parading a motley group of cons, who claim that they were solicited for the homicide. One of them, Billy Frank Mulvey, not only attests to the murder for hire, but also states that he shared a jail cell with Powers, who confessed the crime to him.

Astonishingly, the incredible coincidence whereby the would-be hit man would share a cell with the actual perp is not doubted by the prosecution. News accounts indicate that until this point, a conviction seems guaranteed.

Foreman calls no witnesses, but hangs his hat on criticizing the forensic evidence, and attacking Mulvey’s credibility. He is even challenged by Prosecutor Richard Gerstein on not delivering on his promise to prove Jacques’ homosexuality, but that backfires, amidst Foreman’s effective, if sophomoric technique of simply turning tables on all the prosecution’s points, while making precious few of his own.

Candy and her lover are found not guilty, and their affair ends a short time after the trial.

Candy consoles herself with a $33 million inheritance, while Powers goes through a number of financial boom and bust cycles. Neither is shunned by polite society. Candy marries a much younger man, who ends up with a mysterious disabling injury, and is later divorced by Candy. Candy OD’s in a Miami hotel room in October, 1976.

Some say it was guilt, others say she just took too many pain meds. Her net worth is estimated at well over $100 million.

Would this homicidal pair have been convicted given today’s forensics, and a case minus the ridiculous parade of essentially bribed felons? Probably, but it really doesn’t matter.