Home
mom killed by girl's Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in mom killed by girl's LiveJournal:

    [ << Previous 20 ]
    Thursday, April 9th, 2009
    1:01 pm
    [foxbase]
    trial in sept
    Anyone going to Alaska in September?

    Waterman trial set for September
    (Published April 08, 2009)

    KETCHIKAN, Alaska — A murder trial for a Craig woman accused a second time of plotting with two former boyfriends to kill her mother has been set for September in Ketchikan.

    Rachelle Waterman, who is now 20, pleaded innocent to seven counts, including first-degree murder, at Tuesday's arraignment in Ketchikan for the 2004 death of Lauri Waterman.

    The defense attorney wants a change of venue, but the prosecution said it's best to keep the trial in Ketchikan, though it would take longer to find a jury.

    "Approximately 80 percent of the people in Ketchikan had heard about the case, and I think of those about 40 percent had had a strong opinion about guilt," said Ketchikan District Attorney Stephen West.

    "It is my inclination to set this matter for Ketchikan," Judge William Carey said.

    Waterman is charged with kidnapping, conspiracy to commit murder, and first-degree murder. The second trail is set to begin in mid-September.
    Thursday, April 2nd, 2009
    12:42 pm
    [foxbase]
    rachelle indicted
    didn't know she had moved to FLA...

    Rachelle Waterman indicted in mother's murder
    (Published March 27, 2009)

    KETCHIKAN, Alaska — A grand jury in Ketchikan has indicted Rachelle Waterman on charges relating to the death of her mother, Lauri Waterman, in 2004.

    Rachelle Waterman, now 20 years old and living in Florida, is facing numerous charges, including conspiracy to commit murder, murder and kidnapping. She will be arraigned on April 3 in Ketchikan, Alaska State Troopers said Friday.
    Monday, December 8th, 2008
    12:56 pm
    [foxbase]
    Appeals court asks for retrial of Waterman
    Steven Wells, Rachelle's attorney: "They've got one dirt bag witness who says that she was involved, and that's it".

    Appeals court asks for retrial of Waterman
    Friday, December 5, 2008

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- The state says it plans to take the Craig teenager accused of planning her mother's 2004 murder back to court.

    The Court of Appeals ordered the trial judge to take a second look at the state's case against Rachelle Waterman.

    After Waterman's case was declared a mistrial in 2006, the judge threw out the indictment.

    Judge Patricia Collins said the videotaped confession was inadmissible in court, but the Court of Appeals said Friday only a small portion of the interview could be thrown out.

    Only about a 20-minute portion of that confession was involuntary, the three-judge panel ruled. Now a decision must be made on whether or not the remaining part of the statement is enough to indict Waterman.

    "If you exclude the small portion that the Court of Appeals suppressed, there's more than enough sufficient evidence to support the indictment," said Ketchikan District Attorney Stephen West.

    But Waterman's defense attorney disagrees.

    "They've got one dirt bag witness who says that she was involved, and that's it," said defense attorney Steven Wells. "The other guy says, ‘I think he's lying.'"

    Despite what the judge or a grand jury may decide, the state says it has enough to retry the case -- and win.

    "On a retrial, the state always has more advantage than on an original trial, because on a retrial you now know what a defense is going to be," West said.

    But that advantage is not enough to discourage Waterman's attorney. He says the defense has never been a surprise.

    "We've got a ton of witnesses," Wells said. "They've come in, they've testified, we've got their statements under oath and they present a really compelling picture of innocence of Rachelle Waterman."

    Despite confidence on both sides, this is a case that -- the first time -- did not convince a jury either way. Now another jury will have to hash out the details with less evidence.

    If the judge decides to throw out the indictment with the remaining evidence, the state can still re-indict Waterman if it feels it has enough evidence to convict.

    The state says that's the route they plan to take in that instance. Then it will be in the hands of the grand jury.

    And if the judge decides the indictment is valid, both sides will head straight to a re-trial.

    Alaska appeals court says judge must reconsider dismissal of indictment in Craig murder
    December 5, 2008 9:34 PM ET

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - A judge must reconsider her decision to dismiss an indictment against a Craig teenager accused of plotting with two former boyfriends to kill her mother.

    The Alaska Court of Appeals says Superior Court Judge Patricia Collins must consider most of a videotaped statement by then-16-year-old Rachelle Waterman after her trial ended in a hung jury.

    Collins threw out the statement, saying it was coerced. Based on the weight of the statement in the state's case, the judge also threw out the indictment.

    The appeals court Friday sided with Collins in suppressing the last portion of the interview, where Waterman told Alaska State Troopers she knew of the plot to kill her mother and did nothing to stop it.

    The statement was made days after Lauri Waterman's charred body was found Nov. 14, 2004, inside the family's minivan off a remote logging road.
    Monday, September 22nd, 2008
    12:59 pm
    [foxbase]
    Alaska asking for new trial...
    The state of Alaska wants a new trial...

    State asks for new trial for Waterman
    Associated Press - September 19, 2008

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska
    - Two and a half years after a judge dismissed the case against Craig teen Rachelle Waterman, the state of Alaska is trying to bring her to trial again for the murder of her mother.

    A state attorney on Thursday morning asked a three-judge Appellate Court to grant a new trial.

    Waterman's attorney argued the state has no right to appeal.

    If the state has it's way, Waterman could be back again to face charges that she plotted her mother's death with two former boyfriends.

    Both men are serving jail sentences for the crime.

    A judge threw out Waterman's indictment because the confession on which it was based may have been coerced.

    The appeals process can take months or even years.

    Information from: KTUU-TV, http://www.ktuu.com

    Waterman case brought to appeals court
    Thursday, Sept. 18, 2008

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska
    -- It's been four years since the murder of Lauri Waterman rocked the southeast community of Craig, and two and a half years since her daughter, Rachelle Waterman, was accused of plotting her murder.

    Rachelle walked free, but the case is not over yet.

    The question still remains: Did she or did she not convince two ex- boyfriends to kill her mother?

    The state of Alaska continues to try to bring Rachelle to trial again.

    In March 2006, after spending three weeks on trial accused of murder and nearly 14 months behind bars, 17 year-old Rachelle Waterman was out on bail.

    But Thursday morning, an attorney for the state of Alaska argued before a three-judge panel that dismissing the indictment against Waterman in Trial Court was a big mistake.

    "First of all this is a particularly heinous crime. This is murder. It is a planned murder where a daughter planned and convinced her boyfriend to murder her mother. It does not get much worse than that," Attorney Diane Wendlandt said.

    In order to get a second trial, the state has to convince the Appellate Court to grant one.

    If they don't, double jeopardy laws mean Waterman will walk free for good.

    "Bottom line you'll be letting a murderer off the hook. Not because the police made a mistake, not because the prosecution made a mistake, but because of an unreviewable trial court error," said Wendlandt. "The public deserves better than that, and review is appropriate in this case."

    Meanwhile, Waterman's attorney says the state has no right to appeal.

    "In this case for one reason, jurisdiction," said Attorney Beth Trimmer.

    There is also the issue of Waterman's videotaped confession, in which Waterman tells Alaska State Troopers of her involvement in convicted killers Jason Arrent and Brian Radel's plan to kill her mother.

    In the confession Waterman says that she was "pretty sure" the murder was going to happen, and that she didn't tell anybody about it.

    During the trial, the judge threw the confession out, saying it could have been coerced.

    Waterman's attorney says it should remain suppressed.

    "On Nov. 17 the officers lied and manipulated both Doc waterman, Rachelle's father, and Rachelle causing them to believe that she was not involved in, or responsible for her mother's death in any way," said Trimmer.

    Watching it all from the courtroom was Doc Waterman himself. He flew in from Craig, where he still lives in the same home.

    "They (residents in Craig) still believe that she should've been convicted and it's difficult because most of them are my friends, I've known them for years," Doc Waterman said. "But life goes on, and it's a great community. Craig is the best place in the world to live."

    His daughter, Rachelle who turned 20 last month was not present.

    Doc says Rachelle is currently living out of state, and is planning to finish a degree.

    If the state has it's way, Waterman could be back again to face accusations that she plotted her mother's death.

    The appeals process can take months or even years.

    State wants Craig woman re-tried for mother's murder
    The Associated Press, September 19th


    The state of Alaska is attempting to put a Craig woman back on trial for the murder of her mother.

    A judge nearly three years ago dismissed the case against Rachelle Waterman, now 20, for orchestrating the murder of her mother, Lauri Waterman. The dismissal came after a jury couldn't reach a verdict.

    Assistant attorney general Diane Wendlandt on Thursday asked a three-judge Appellate Court to grant a new trial.

    Wendlandt argued the state should be allowed to retry Waterman given the particularly heinous nature of the crime.

    "Bottom line, you'll be letting a murderer off the hook. Not because the police made a mistake, not because the prosecution made a mistake, but because of an unreviewable trial court error," said Wendlandt. "The public deserves better than that, and review is appropriate in this case."

    Waterman's attorney, Beth Trimmer, argued the state has no right to appeal "this case for one reason, jurisdiction."

    Lauri Waterman's body was found by a hunter off a remote logging road on Prince of Wales Island in November 2004. Waterman, 48, had been kidnapped from her home in the middle of the night and was beaten and suffocated to death.

    Brian Radel and Jason Arrant, both 24 at the time, burned Waterman's minivan with her body inside in an attempt to destroy evidence of their crimes.

    Both men pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and agreed to testify at Waterman's trial, which ended in a mistrial when the jury reported itself deadlocked.

    Arrant testified that he and Radel were carrying out the wishes of Rachelle Waterman, who claimed her mother abused her. Radel said the only contact he had in planning the killing was with Arrant.

    Both men were former lovers of the teenage girl, from the time she was 15 until she turned 16.

    Juneau Superior Court Judge Patricia Collins threw out Waterman's indictment because she said the confession on which it was based may have been coerced.

    The girl's statements to police were the centerpiece of the state's arguments to the grand jury that handed down the indictment in the case.

    Waterman told police at the time that she knew of the plot to kill her mother and did nothing to stop it. Those videotaped interviews were shown during the trial.

    Collins said the prosecution had not proved her statements were voluntary. Collins said police lied to Waterman about evidence in the case and were coercive when they threatened her with harsher consequences if she did not confess.

    Waterman was set free in March 2006.

    If the state wins its argument, Waterman would face a new trial with her statement to police again being used as evidence against her.

    Waterman's attorney says it should remain suppressed.

    Waterman did not appear at the Thursday hearing in Anchorage.

    Her father, Carl "Doc" Waterman, did attend and said his daughter is currently living out of state and working on a college degree.

    Waterman said he still lives in the same home in Craig.

    "They (residents in Craig) still believe that she should've been convicted and it's difficult because most of them are my friends; I've known them for years," Doc Waterman said. "But life goes on, and it's a great community. Craig is the best place in the world to live," he told Anchorage television station KTUU.

    It was not known when the appeals court would issue a decision.
    Thursday, June 26th, 2008
    10:00 am
    [foxbase]
    the "infamous blogger" in Craig, Alaska: Rachelle Waterman Update
    Our buddy Steven Wells gives us an update on Rachelle's case.

    http://www.alaskareport.com/blog/2008/06/25/rachelle-waterman-update.htm

    Rachelle Waterman Update

    Jun 25th, 2008


    Rachelle Waterman is the infamous blogger in Craig, Alaska who prosecutors say had two former lovers carry out the killing of Waterman’s mother.

    Jason Arrant and Brian Radel pleaded guilty to murder and testified against Waterman. Arrant claimed that Waterman asked him to kill her mother. He had Radel kidnap Lauri Waterman from her home one night when she was alone. The two men suffocated her in a botched attempt to make her death look like a drunken-driving accident.

    The charred body of her mother, Lauri Waterman, was found in the family’s minivan off a remote logging road in November 2004.

    Waterman, 16 at the time, was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, murder in the first and second degree, kidnapping, burglary, vehicle theft and tampering with evidence.

    Waterman kept a blog, called “My Crappy Life” that detailed her conflicts with her mother and growing up in the small town of 1,100 which she referred to as “Hell, Alaska.”

    Back in the spring of 2006 when I used to live in Juneau, I covered the case for AlaskaReport.

    I emailed Waterman’s defense attorney Steven M. Wells a few days ago because I was curious to know what the status of the case was. This is what he sent back:

    The case is still under appeal. The State argues that Judge Collins was wrong to have suppressed the statement and dismissed the indictment. They appealed, arguing that they have a right to appeal.

    Ms. Waterman argues, though, that they do not have the right to an interlocutory appeal as a matter of right. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal that occurs before a final judgment. She has moved to prevent the State from appealing at this point.

    The State is somewhat stuck because their public position is that there is enough evidence to try Ms. Waterman without her statement. I believe otherwise. If the Court of Appeals grants the motion, it would force the State to proceed without her statement. At that point, the State may seek to try Ms. Waterman again or it may decide against doing so. In that event, the State would have to obtain a new indictment.

    If the Court of Appeals denies the motion, it means that the appeal would be accepted and the Court of Appeals would review the matter to determine if Judge Collins was correct in suppressing Ms. Waterman’s statement. If they determine that Judge Collins was correct, the State would again have to choose whether to seek another trial without Ms. Waterman’s statements. If the court determines that Judge Collins erred in suppressed the statement, the indictment would be re-instated and the State could proceed to trial on the indictment already returned.
    Tuesday, June 17th, 2008
    1:01 pm
    [foxbase]
    medical examiner who performed Lauri Waterman's post-morten dies of cancer
    Anyone remember Franc?

    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/438764.html

    Cancer claims former medical examiner

    (06/17/08 00:17:12)
    - A man who made a career of death is dead.

    Franc Fallico, the state's former chief medical examiner, died Saturday, said Ann Potempa, a spokeswoman with the state Department of Health and Social Services.

    Fallico, 66, had cancer.

    Fallico retired from his job as state medical examiner in April, a position he held since 2001. He had been on extended medical leave since October.

    "He loved to discuss/debate an issue and would take the opposing side just to challenge an ideology and make you think out loud," his wife, Hisa, wrote in an e-mail on Monday.

    He died at home, watching the movie "The Bucket List" with his wife by his side. The movie is about two terminally ill men who escape from a cancer ward to do the things they always wanted to do before they die.

    During Fallico's tenure, he was a familiar figure in courtrooms, in the news and among law enforcement around the state. He performed 1,577 autopsies, including those for some of Alaska's most gruesome crimes. He delivered his courtroom testimony about horrific deaths in plainspoken, matter-of-fact tones.

    He performed postmortems on some of Alaska's most famous murder victims. Recently those have included Mindy Schloss, Lauri Waterman and Delaney Zutz.

    Schloss, a nurse, turned up dead and her neighbor, Joshua Wade, who had been previously acquitted of one murder conviction, has been charged with killing her. In the Waterman case, a Juneau jury hung on whether her teenage daughter Rachelle should be convicted of murder. And 13-year-old Zutz was killed by a neighborhood acquaintance now serving a life sentence.

    Fallico attended medical school in Italy. In 1976, he moved to Anchorage and worked as a hospital pathologist for 20 years at Providence Alaska Medical Center before becoming a medical examiner.

    In 2005, he appeared in the Werner Herzog documentary "Grizzly Man" about the bear mauling death of Timothy Treadwell. His brief on-screen interview telling the riveting details of what happened grabbed the attention of national film critics. A New York Times reviewer said he was a "character around whom an entire reality show could be built."

    A funeral service is planned for 5:30 p.m. Wednesday at St. Patrick's Church, 2111 Muldoon Road. It is open to the public.
    Saturday, October 27th, 2007
    5:06 am
    [txtigerman]
    The quiet return.
     http://smchyrocky.livejournal.com

    Almost seems kind of fitting after all of this time.
    Saturday, January 20th, 2007
    4:31 pm
    [scarshapedstar]
    Was just clearing out some files
    And I came across this. Ah, memories.

    http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg734q/rachelledance.swf

    Current Music: Psapp - Hill of our Home
    Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007
    1:28 pm
    [foxbase]
    rachelle makes another top 10 list!
    http://www.sitnews.us/0107news/010207/010207_yearinreview.html

    Waterman mistrial

    A Juneau jury declared a mistrial on Feb. 14 in the first degree murder case of Craig teenager Rachelle Waterman who is accused of arranging to have two former boyfriends murder her mother. Jurors deadlocked 10-2 for acquittal.

    The case had generated national attention, and Court TV coverage, because Waterman had kept an internet blog detailing her anger at her life in "small town, nowhere Alaska." Many readers felt that she showed little remorse in her blog after the murder of her mother.

    Her former boyfriends - who actually carried out the murder while Rachelle was out of town - pled guilty and were sentenced to 99 year prison terms. They testified against her at the trial. The state indicated it planned to retry Waterman, but shortly after the trial the judge threw out key evidence including Waterman's recorded confession. No decision to retry had been announced by the end of the year.
    Saturday, December 23rd, 2006
    7:02 pm
    [txtigerman]
    Dateline
    The Rachelle story is going to be on Dateline NBC tonight. The show is on right now.
    Thursday, December 21st, 2006
    1:26 pm
    [foxbase]
    Rachelle Makes Top 10!
    Rachelle's case made the top 10 stories of 2006 in Alaska - huzzah!

    Top 10 stories of 2006: Craig teen goes on trial for mother's murder
    Top 10: Waterman trial
    by Angela Unruh
    Tuesday, Dec. 19, 2006

    Craig, Alaska
    - In November 2004 in Craig, Alaska, 16-year-old Rachelle Waterman and her two 24-year-old ex-boyfriends were arrested for planning and carrying out the murder of 48-year-old Lauri Waterman. This January, in Juneau, she went on trial for her mother's murder. Jurors heard her taped confession to police.

    "You knew that it was going to happen and you didn't stop it? You knew, now you knew it had happened, and you didn't, you didn't tell anybody about it did you?" asked prosecutors.

    "No, I didn't," Waterman told prosecutors on Feb. 2.

    Alaska State Troopers say she convinced Jason Arrant and Brian Radel to carry out the killing, giving them details about when would be a good time to commit the crime.

    "How did you find out Lauri Waterman would be home alone the weekend of Nov. 13?" asked prosecutors.

    "Rachelle provided that information," said Arrant.

    Then jurors heard from Radel, who described in chilling detail how he tried to kill Lauri Waterman.

    "I had her kneel. I attempted to break her neck backwards, by forcing her chin back," Radel said.

    "How far back did you pull her head back?" asked prosecutors.

    "A ways," Radel said. Defense attorneys then asked for a recess and Rachelle ran from the courtroom.

    But Radel admitted Rachelle Waterman never talked directly to him.

    "Mr. Radel, did Rachelle Waterman ever ask you to kill her mother?" asked her defense attorney Steven Wells.

    "No," replied Radel.

    Instead, Radel says it was Jason Arrant who told him she wanted that. And after hearing three weeks of testimony and deliberating five days, jurors were deadlocked -- hung up on one element that appeared in every charge: intent. Did Waterman intend for her mother to be murdered?

    "We cannot produce a unanimous vote with any further deliberation," the jury said on Feb. 14.

    One month later, in March, Superior Court Judge Patricia Collins dismissed the indictment against Waterman after ruling that her videotaped confession to police may have been coerced.

    "Basically, I have concluded that that testimony, should this case proceed yet again to trial, is inadmissible," said Judge Collins.

    With that ruling, Rachelle Waterman made bail and tasted freedom for the first time in nearly 14 months.
    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
    Rachelle Waterman, 16, was arrested for conspiring to have her mother murdered.
    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
    Waterman allegedly convinced two of her ex-boyfriends, including Jason Arrant, to murder her mother.
    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
    Brian Radel described for the jury how he attempted to murder Lauri Waterman.
    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
    Judge Patricia Collins threw out Waterman's taped confession, believing it was coerced.
    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
    Waterman was ultimately freed on $50,000 and has fled the state.

    The state appealed the judge's ruling and it could be one year before the court of appeals makes a finding. For now, Waterman remains free on $50,000 bail and all that's known is she's somewhere outside of Alaska.

    The two men who admitted to the murder were sentenced in March. Jason Arrant was given 50 years, while Brian Radel, the man who actually killed Lauri Waterman, will spend 99 years behind bars.
    Friday, December 1st, 2006
    10:13 am
    [foxbase]
    What do you think of Rachelle Waterman’s release from prison?
    This is old, but I just found it today. A response from one of the jurors, giving us some insight into their view on things.

    from: http://juneaublogger.com/voxbox/2006/03/09/rachelle-watermans-release.html

    Mindy Says:
    March 10th, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    All these points of view are interesting. I am guessing most of you gained your facts through the paper you are reading or media. How do you know it is the truth? How do you know that all the details were truly given in the article? How can you pass judgements on people you never met or got to know? How would you feel if you were ‘Doc’?

    I have many times seen how the media will twist and portray and issue in the most lude or lascivious way possible. Why? It sells papers, even at the expense of a person who is innocent until proven guilty.

    I sat on that trial for 3.5 weeks with 14 other people I am honored to have come to know. What I learned when it was over and finally saw the media’s impression is that…The devil is in the details! And the details are missing in the media.

    It is amazing how one choice can have such a devestating affect on SO many lives. My heart goes out to all affected by this. All I can do is make better choices for myself and hope others can learn by example.
    PEACE!

    Robert M. Says:
    March 14th, 2006 at 1:17 am

    Mindy,

    If you come back to check your post, I just want to say how right you are about details and all media’s failure to convey even the most relevant parts. They seem to just fall into parroted sensationalism instead of presenting anything like intelligent interpretation.

    The blogger over at Court-TV actually came far down the path of intelligent summary, but even there, given my own research experience in these matters, it was frustrating to know there was much more unsummarized. It’s still posted so you might want to review it, given that you were otherwise occupied “in experiencing it in real-time”.

    And for that, I want to publicly THANK YOU and ALL the other jurors, too. Not for voting as you did, but for the process by which you attended to the information while sitting there, and the process by which you, quite civily it seems, worked through it all over again in your deliberations. From what you’ve said here, and from what I’ve read elsewhere, it appears as if it was an almost transforming experience.

    No fellow citizen could have asked for better consideration of his/her situation than what you provided Rachelle Waterman. Nor could the State of Alaska, not if its prosecutors truly believe in the empaneling of fair and impartial jurors.

    The vital, strongly beating heart of Anglo-American jurisprudence is the jury trial when the jurors stand-by the centuries-old values of our system and stand-by each other in comity.

    Thank you all so very much.

    A visitor from the Bay State.

    Mindy Says:
    March 21st, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    Thank you for your kind words Robert. I truly appreciate them. This is an experience I will NEVER forget. And a experience I am still healing from. And yes this was a VERY ‘transforming experience.’
    I did review CourtTV. And while I found they listed FAR more than most media, they still did not put it all in there. As jurors we read and reviewed ALL that was presented and more in that room. No stone was left unturned. No thought unsaid. And always we honored the integrity of each juror’s thoughts.
    For me, this system worked. And I also cannot tell you enough how we all appreciated the Honorable Patricia Collins who resided over this case. She is a woman of integrity and I am so thankful I was able to serve on this trial with her.
    Friday, October 6th, 2006
    9:59 am
    [foxbase]
    rachelle gets a mention...
    Woooah - Rachelle got a mention in this article about this other freaky teen Alaska killer.

    Teen seeks juvenile court trial in stepmother's death

    COTTING: His lawyers say automatically trying him as an adult would violate rights.
    Anchorage Daily News

    Published: October 6, 2006
    Last Modified: October 6, 2006 at 03:08 AM

    A teenager accused of raping his stepmother, killing her and stuffing her in a freezer is trying to get his case sent back to juvenile court, according to a request filed by his attorney.

    Colin Cotting was 16 when he was charged with first-degree murder in the 2004 death of his stepmother, Carol Cotting. He was arrested as a juvenile but automatically waived into adult court in keeping with Alaska law.

    State statutes require that 16- and 17-year-olds charged with certain serious crimes, such as murder or arson, be treated as adults. The general idea behind the law is that there is not enough time to rehabilitate those offenders in the juvenile system before they turn 20 and can no longer be held.

    Lawyers for Cotting -- now 18 and scheduled to face a jury next month -- say the law is unconstitutional. His attorneys argued in writing that the automatic waiver violates Cotting's right to equal protection and due process and that it violates international law.

    In a hearing Thursday, defense attorney Leslie Hiebert asked Superior Court Judge John Suddock to at least grant Cotting a hearing so she could argue that his case in particular should not be in the adult system.

    This is not the first time Alaska's automatic-waiver law has been challenged, and so far it has survived intact.

    Assistant district attorney KeriAnn Brady said in court filings that efforts identical to Cotting's were made in two other recent homicides, including the highly publicized Rachelle Waterman murder case in Craig. Waterman was accused of conspiring with two former boyfriends when she was 16 to kill her mother. She was tried as an adult and freed after a Juneau jury was unable to reach a verdict.

    "Both judges who reviewed the (previous cases) denied them without a hearing," Brady wrote. The Court of Appeals has twice reviewed the law and found it constitutional, she said.

    At Thursday's hearing, Brady argued that Hiebert has no credible argument for challenging the law yet again.

    Brady argued against an "unnecessary delay" in the case, which is scheduled to go to trial Nov. 6. The victim's family members deserve to have the case resolved, she said: "These people have been waiting long enough."

    Carol Cotting, 42, was found dead at her Anchorage home on Oct. 20, 2004. Her husband, who had just returned from an out-of-town business trip, discovered her body in a basement freezer, frozen and partially clothed.

    Colin Cotting told police he and his stepmother got into a physical fight when she confronted him about being high on marijuana and at some point she fell down a flight of stairs, according to charging documents. He told detectives he "may" also have hit her with a bat, but couldn't remember clearly because he was "too stoned," the documents say.

    The boy denied raping his stepmother.

    Cotting, who has a slight frame and pale skin, sat next to his attorney Thursday in court wearing handcuffs and a yellow jail jumpsuit. He did not speak on the record.

    Suddock didn't issue a formal ruling but called the defense request a "long shot." He declined to set a hearing on the issue.
    Monday, July 24th, 2006
    10:49 am
    [foxbase]
    Rachelle on Dateline
    Super bummed I missed this. hopefully they'll re-air it on one of the NBC cable channels.

    Teen blogger murder trial
    How could Rachelle Waterman's fantasies spiral into her mom's murder?
    By John Larson
    Correspondent
    NBC News
    This report airs Dateline Sunday, July 23

    CRAIG, ALASKA -
    John Larson, Dateline correspondent: If everything had gone perfectly, how would this story have played out? Let's say you had gotten away with it.Brian Radel: Gotten away with it? There would have been no way that could happen.

    You're about to hear a story about a girl with a killer imagination.

    A story about an Alaskan teenager who imagined and told stories of wild things - even murder.
    Brian Radel: If she made it up, she made up a story but that's all she did.Larson: Hell of a story.

    And the stories were so seductive, men would kill for them.
    Brian Radel: Somebody ended up dead in this story.

    It happened in this beautiful place of cold, deep water and endless spruce forest. Paradise to some, yet the beauty of the fishing village of Craig, Alaska on Prince of Wales Island is surpassed only by its isolation. You can get here only by ferry or tiny float plane.

    Everyone knows everyone here. The locals will tell you there's no reason not to leave your keys in your car... no need to lock your doors at night. At least there wasn't, until one rainy night back in 2004.

    What happened down this road took all the natural beauty and solitude of the place and overnight made it seem ominous. A murder so brutal, and different because it may have begun as the fantasy of a teenage girl. A story that included tales of abuse, prostitution, even witchcraft. But what was real... and what was imagined?

    It was Saturday, November 13th. Lauri Waterman, a 48-year-old special education aide, wife and mother spent the evening volunteering at a Chamber of Commerce dinner.
    Jann Martelli, Lauri Waterman’s sister-in-law: Lauri Martelli Waterman was the consummate mother. And a beautiful, lovely woman, very selfless and very giving.

    After dinner, she returned to an empty house. Her husband "Doc" was out of town. Her daughter Rachelle — an honor student and athlete at the local high school — was 400 miles away in Anchorage, playing in a volleyball tournament. So Lauri climbed into bed sometime after eleven p.m. and went to sleep, alone.

    The next morning, Lauri didn't show up for church. And when Doc and Rachelle returned home that afternoon they discovered Lauri and the family van were gone. No one had seen her and she'd left no explanations. Doc called his best friend and next door neighbor Don Pierce.
    Don Pierce, friend of the Waterman family: He called about 3:00 in the afternoon to ask if Lauri was at our house.

    She’d been expected, but never showed up. And inside the Waterman house, Lauri's husband and daughter had found some strange things -- the bed unmade, odd fibers, the fingertip of a rubber glove on the bedroom floor... and on the kitchen counter, an empty wine bottle: odd because Lauri rarely drank.
    Pierce: Lauri wasn't one to go around without people knowing that she was gonna go somewhere.

    Doc searched the town and then called police. But the next morning, a Monday, there was still no sign of Lauri. Her daughter Rachelle, trying to maintain a sense of normalcy, went to school... where she shared fears that her mother was dead -- perhaps even killed in a drunk driving accident.

    And then Rachelle heard the rumors spreading like fire through the high school... rumors that a van was found in the woods... with human remains inside.
    Pierce: I got a call asking me to take Rachelle home because she was losing it.

    Don, the Watermans' closest friend, teaches at the high school.
    Pierce: Rachelle was just totally in tears. She was rocking back and forth in the passenger seat of my truck, um, she was saying Hail Marys.

    When Don and Rachelle arrived at the house, police did, too... and shared the devastating news: the van found smoldering in the woods some 40 miles away from their home -- was, in fact, Lauri's. The fire burned so hot, it stripped the paint off the van, melted the license plates. On the floorboard behind the front seat was a pile of ash and a human skull.
    Larson: What was Rachelle's reaction when she found out there was a body in her mother's van?Pierce: Tears. We weren't even sure it was Lauri and she was beside herself. Her world was crumbling down.

    Three days after her disappearance, it was confirmed: the remains were Lauri Waterman's. And when investigators examined the evidence -- the heat of the fire, the location of the remains, the trail of gasoline leading from the vehicle, it was clear that this was no accident.

    Lauri Waterman had been murdered. But who would kill one of the most-loved people in town?
    Pierce: I could upset more people in an hour than she could in a lifetime.

    Even though there was evidence someone had broken in, it was clearly not a burglary, so police began doing what they routinely do -- looking first at those closest to Lauri... from Doc... to friends like Don Pierce. Soon, their focus turned to someone they knew had been a source of friction in the Waterman house -- Rachelle's 24-year-old boyfriend, Jason Arrant.
    Pierce: I don't think that any of us really knew Jason. We knew who he was but we didn't really know him, what he was capable of.

    Arrant was a janitor and a Marine Corps dropout. And it was no secret that Lauri Waterman had not approved of her 16-year-old daughter's relationship with the older man. And then there was Arrant's best friend, 24-year-old Brian Radel. He was a hulking man with wild red hair and a goatee who turned up in town a few days after the murder... with his head and face shaved.
    Pierce: Brian Radel, he scares me. He has a look to his eye that kind of leads me to believe that he's not all there.

    Radel had also dated Rachelle at one time. He was known around town as a pied-piper of sorts who gathered high schoolers to his computer shop where they played video games and dungeons and dragons. It didn't take police long to suspect that Radel... Arrant... or both men had something to do with the murder.

    So the janitor, Jason Arrant, was brought here for questioning and the mystery quickly unraveled. He told police his best friend Brian Radel had killed Lauri Waterman. Police then asked him if he would wear a wire to help gather evidence on his friend and the plan worked. Brian Radel not only implicated himself, but Jason Arrant was clearly involved in the killing, too.

    The two men soon confessed and poured out the horrific details of the murder. They had planned to make it look like a drunk driving accident. Radel shaved his entire body to avoid leaving evidence behind. He broke into the Waterman home and forced Lauri to drink a bottle of wine, then drove her in her own van to a remote forest service road, where he met Arrant. Neither man had ever done anything like this before, but the killing began.
    Brian Radel, convicted of murdering Lauri Waterman: It's not like I’m a professional killer. I don't really know how to kill somebody. I didn't do any of it very well. Breaking her neck, I definitely wasn't successful at that. Didn't kill her right away when I hit her in the throat.

    When that didn't work, Radel smothered her. They realized her death would not look like an accident as they had planned. So they drove to another location, doused the inside of the van with gasoline -- with Lauri's body inside -- and lit it. They burned other evidence as well. At one point before the fire, before she died, Lauri spoke.
    Larson: What did she say to you?Radel: She said, “Can I ask a question?'” And she just kept repeating that, “Can I ask a question?” Jason asked me, “What do you think she wants to ask?” And I said, “I think she wants to know why in the world this is happening.”

    It was the same thing her family and friends wanted to know: Why? The answer was almost impossible to believe.
    Radel: I felt pressured that I needed to protect Rachelle.

    Protect Rachelle? From her mother, known by everyone in town for her acts of kindness? It made no sense to anyone who knew Lauri Waterman.

    Don Pierce, friend of the Waterman family: Something she said triggered such strong emotions in Jason that he felt that he had to save her.

    People in the small Alaskan village of Craig were shocked by the brutal murder of Lauri Waterman and the arrest of two young locals who quickly confessed to the killing. But nothing could have prepared them for what came next -- the men claimed it was Lauri's teenage daughter who put them up to it.
    Dina Keyt, Rachelle Waterman’s aunt: It's not possible.Larson: It’s like this family's suffering enough-- now you’ve got to drag somebody else into it.Dina Keyt: Yeah. Right.

    What Rachelle's family heard didn't seem possible of the smart, athletic girl they knew and loved. Every summer, Rachelle and her mom would spend weeks with Lauri's family in Tacoma, Washington. Don Martelli is Rachelle's grandfather.
    Don Martelli, Sr., Rachelle’s grandfather: She would help me with the projects I had around the yard. And she's right there with me all the time. She would help her mother with the dishes and she would help cooking.

    But as the investigators dug deeper, they discovered another side of Rachelle... one her family hadn't seen. A darker side - revealed in an Internet blog Rachelle called "My Crappy Life.”
    "Don't you hate it when the little pieces of sh-- pile up to the point you're at the breaking point, and you want to scream and cry at the same time."

    In it, Rachelle called home "Hell, Alaska." And while most entries could be brushed off as typical teenage posturing, others were more disturbing: passages on the occult, a description of a pentagram Rachelle had burned into her skin with a heated paperclip.

    And when it came to her mother, whom she called "the female parental unit,” Rachelle wrote that Lauri criticized her weight, read her mail, once went “psycho bitch” on her and threw her down the stairs.

    The day after police confirmed Lauri Waterman had been murdered, Rachelle's blog ended with an emotionless entry:
    11/18/04 blog entryJust to let everyone know, my mother was murdered. I won't have computer access until the weekend or so because the police took my computer to go through the hard drive.

    But the most troubling information came from the confessed killers themselves --- Jason Arrant and Brian Radel. Brian told police he'd briefly had a sexual relationship with Rachelle when she was just 15 years old and when that ended, he set her up with his best friend Jason. Both men fell in love with Rachelle and over time, she shared stories about life in the Waterman home, a life, she said, far different from what it seemed.

    Brian Radel, dated Rachelle Waterman: She would mention that her mom had hit her with a baseball bat, that her mom liked to hit her in the lower back.Larson: Did you ever see the bruises?Radel: Yes, I did see bruises.Larson: Where were they?Radel: The ones that I saw were on her upper thighs.

    Family and friends could not believe it -- Lauri Waterman was loved in town, always the first to volunteer and the last to leave when a job needed to be finished.
    Geoffrey Waterman, Lauri Waterman’s son: She was loving. She just really wanted to bring out the best in people.

    And, her family says, Lauri would never, ever hurt her daughter, that if Rachelle had bruises, they were not caused by Lauri.
    Don Martelli, Lauri Waterman’s brother: She's making up stuff to get attention. And that's the part that bothered me the most. Because I know my sister, I know what she's done for her family. I know that she's a loving person.

    But the killers, Arrant and Radel, told police that Rachelle had feared for her life... and that they felt compelled to act.
    Radel: I said "I'd protect Rachelle. If I don't go through with this, I’m really not willing to protect Rachelle like I said I was."

    So troopers brought Rachelle in to try to find out what was going on. She went willingly, without her father or a lawyer, and with a camera rolling, Rachelle tells them she had nothing to do with the murder... but does acknowledge that she had been fighting with her mom about her clothes, her interest in the occult, and her boyfriends.
    Rachelle Waterman (interrogation footage): She was a bit shocked, I guess, that I was talking to this older guy...

    And in another interview two days later, Rachelle shares the same awful story she had told Arrant and Radel: that her mother, publicly well-respected, was privately abusive.
    Rachelle: People in public probably think my mom would never lose her temper. Probably think she never cusses or anything. But, you know, behind closed doors, other things happen.

    Listening to Rachelle's stories, it's difficult for even these seasoned troopers to know whether she's exaggerating typical mother-daughter battles... or whether something Dangerous was going on. She tells them her mother tried to push her down the stairs, beat her with a baseball bat, even threatened to sell her into sexual slavery.
    Rachelle: My mom was really mad at me and they were low on money and she was talking to me about selling me for prostitution as a punishment.

    She was afraid, Rachelle says, that her mother would kill her.
    Rachelle: She has raised a knife to me. She threatened me while going like this with a knife.

    Rachelle says she knew that no one would believe her stories of abuse — no one but Brian Radel and Jason Arrant. And it was Jason, Rachelle says, who first suggested a deadly solution.
    Rachelle: I just said, “Sometimes I just wish my mother wasn't here; she causes me so much pain.”Sergeant Randy McPherron: Okay.Rachelle: And he said, “Would you rather her dead?'” and I said, “I don't know.”

    But Rachelle says that Jason kept pressing the issue -- even ran through murder scenarios with Brian, but says she never really took them seriously.
    Rachelle: I didn't think they had the balls to do it. I thought, I mean how can you stop people who are protective? I thought the worst they could ever do is talk to her.

    And, about 20 minutes after the questioning began, police seem to turn up the pressure when they ask: why would she have told kids at school that her mother probably died in a drunk driving accident if she was not in on the plan?
    Sgt. McPherron: You told your friends Monday before the body had been identified, that your mom probably died in a drunk driving accident.Rachelle: It's what I assumed.Sgt. McPherron: That's because that was what the plan was.Rachelle: No, it's what I assumed.Sgt. McPherron: That's what they told you the plan was going to be.Rachelle: It's what I assumed! I saw the booze in the garbage.

    30 minutes into the interrogation, clearly shaken, the 16-year-old hides her face, as the trooper accuses her of doing nothing to stop her mother's murder.
    Sgt. McPherron: You knew it was gonna happen, and you didn't do anything --Rachelle: I told them not to do it!Sgt. McPherron: And then after you knew what had happened --Rachelle: I told them not to do it!Sgt. McPherron: You didn't do anything.Rachelle: I was scared.Sgt. McPherron: You didn't tell anybody.Rachelle: I was scared.

    And an hour into her questioning, Rachelle's story and her attitude began to change.
    Sgt. McPherron: You didn't do a very good job of stopping them, did you?Rachelle: Well, maybe I should not ever be on a debate team.Sgt. McPherron: Well, you don't need to be a smart aleck with me.Rachelle: Well, you don't need to question everything I say then.

    And then, in a classic good cop-bad cop act, the sergeant warns Rachelle the other investigator is losing his patience.
    Sgt. Habib: I’m sitting over here shaking my head, watching you lie. And it's not helping you any. It's not helping you at all. He's pissed.

    When the other sergeant re-enters the room, Rachelle's attitude changes again.
    Sgt. McPherron: Okay.Rachelle: First of all, I'd like to apologize for being a smart ass.Sgt. McPherron: Okay.

    And after an hour and a half of interrogation, she tells them a new story.
    Rachelle: Murder wasn't the first thing we came to.

    Rachelle tells the troopers she talked to the two men about seeking emancipation -- the legal equivalent of divorcing her parents. But they didn't think a judge would grant her request.
    Rachelle: Then they - it was - that idea started being discussed, murder. And I said “I, you know, I just - I didn't do a lot of talking, I did a lot of listening, because I didn't know what to do. So, like I said, it was discussed and I said, "Well, yes, let's do it."

    A confession. Rachelle approved of the murder of her mother... and admits that when she said she tried to call it off -- she was telling another lie.
    Rachelle: My whole family's gonna hate me. I'll be like tossed out on my butt.

    Rachelle is arrested, charged with conspiracy, murder and five other felony counts...

    The same charges the two men who killed her mother faced. Rachelle's relatives were rocked by the news. her aunt Dina.
    Dina Keyt, Rachelle’s aunt: I didn't understand. I was lost and I was confused. And I just started - shaking. I was crying so hard I was shaking.

    Don Pierce was with Rachelle's father Doc when he heard the news.
    Don Pierce, friend of the Waterman family: As painful as the loss of Lauri was, I think that the arrest of his daughter was even harder.

    And it was about to get harder yet for Doc -- Rachelle was headed to court, where despite that confession, she pleaded not guilty to all charges against her. Now, a jury would have to decide whether she was an innocent victim... or as guilty of murder as the two men who had killed her mother.

    It’s hard to imagine a more beautiful place to settle something so ugly. Rachelle Waterman was charged with first degree murder, conspiracy and five other counts in the killing of her mother and could face up to 99 years in prison if convicted. Her trial opened this past January in Juneau, Alaska, several hundred miles from Rachelle's hometown of Craig.

    Prosecutor Steven West would try to prove that she not only wanted her mother Lauri Waterman dead but with the cooperation of two former boyfriends -- helped plot the murder. Now, with her father standing by her, Rachelle would face the prosecutor and her mother's killers.
    Jason Arrant, Rachelle’s boyfriend (in court): I loved her and I'd already told her I would do anything for her.

    At the center of the prosecution's case was Jason Arrant, the man who said he loved Rachelle so much that he killed for her and he was now the prime witness against her.
    Arrant: She said that she thought it would be better if her mother wasn't around anymore.Steven West, prosecutor: Did you ask her what she meant by that?Jason Arrant: Oh, yes.West: And what was her response?Arrant: That she thought it would be better if her mother was dead.

    The prosecution introduced Jason's e-mails and letters to show he'd do anything to keep his relationship with Rachelle alive. The e-mails —addressed to “Narcissa,” Rachelle's e-mail name -— were sexually graphic. Some were pure fantasy, some talked of getting married. But other correspondence took a darker, conspiratorial tone.
    West, reading e-mail: “I’ll be so glad when this whole thing with your mother is over.” What was that a reference to? Arrant: The whole thing with plotting to kill her.

    And with a letter Rachelle wrote to Jason, the prosecutor tried to demonstrate how Rachelle, heartless and calculating, fantasized how things might be after her mother's death.
    West, reading e-mail: “I wish I could be with you. It consumes most of my thoughts. I’m actually hoping my dad goes off his rocker and can have reason for emancipation.”

    And when it came to the fatal night in question, Jason testified that Rachelle not only told him how to break into the house. But told him the weekend to do it.
    Arrant: She mentioned that a good window of opportunity would be coming up, when she would be going up north for volleyball, and when her dad would also be gone from the home.

    Jason testified about a call he received from Rachelle the night after her mother's murder.
    Arrant: I said, “Well yeah, it's uh, we did it; it's done.” And she asked what happened to the minivan and I said it had been burned, it was completely destroyed. And she expressed disappointment that she wouldn't be inheriting it.

    But the most dramatic testimony in the trial came when prosecutor west called to the stand the other killer -- Brian Radel.
    Brian Radel: I opened the door and I rushed in. Lauri was laying face down on the bed...

    This was the first time Rachelle had heard a description of her mother's death from the killer himself— the story of how he kidnapped her mother, took her to a remote logging road and then slowly killed her.
    Radel: I had her kneel; I attempted to break her neck backwards.West: How'd you do that?Radel: By yanking up on the chin and forcing it back.

    Rachelle, overwhelmed, bolted from the courtroom and according to witnesses, vomited in the restroom. When she returned, Radel continued...
    Radel: She didn't die.West: How could you tell that?Radel: She was still breathing. She said, “Can I ask a question?” I said, “What is it?” and she kept repeating, “Can I ask a question?”

    Then, Brian said, Jason spoke to Lauri Waterman.
    Radel: I crouched down in front of her and said something along the lines of, “You won't ever f---ing hurt Rachelle again.”

    And the prosecution played its trump card, Rachelle's taped interrogations, which they said proved she was involved in the plot.
    Rachelle: "Well, yes, let's do it."

    And -- she knew it might happen that weekend... and did nothing to stop it.
    Sgt. McPherron: So Jason says this would be a good weekend.Rachelle: Uh huh. And I was like, “Well, yeah, I suppose.” And I didn't know if it was for sure or not.

    According to the prosecution, she had wrapped two young men around her little finger, manipulated them into murder...and then left them holding the bag. But the defense was about to begin... with a very different story.

    Steve Wells, defense attorney: As you listen to this evidence, ask yourself: Is Rachelle Waterman an absolutely cold-blooded, psychotic monster? Or is Rachelle Waterman a teenage girl?

    From the start, public defender Steve Wells set out to prove Jason Arrant was the one with motive to kill Lauri Waterman... that the man eight years Rachelle's senior took advantage of the vulnerable teen, twisting her dramatic stories of abuse for his own gain.
    Wells: There's only really one difference between Rachelle Waterman and every other teenage girl— Rachelle Waterman had the misfortune to repeat her comments to Jason Arrant.

    The defense cast Arrant, the prosecution's key witness, as a deranged child predator who plied Rachelle with alcohol, cigarettes and sex... and then twisted her words, using them as an excuse to get her disapproving mother out of the way.
    Wells: Rachelle says "I would be so much better off without my mom." And Jason says, “Well, I can take care of that.”

    Defense attorney Wells said Arrant would do anything, including commit murder, to keep his teenage girlfriend. But now seemed willing to do anything to get his ex-lover convicted.
    Jason Arrant: She gave us the way to get into the house.Wells: Which was?Jason Arrant: It was through a basement window.

    Rachelle's attorney cross-examined Jason Arrant and immediately began attacking his credibility -- beginning with his claim that Rachelle helped plan the killing, that she told him Brian could sneak into the house through a window that she used to sneak out of.

    In the end, Brian used a different window than the one Rachelle used to sneak out of the house. The defense argued that the Watermans kept a key outside by the back door. If Rachelle had been in on the plot, wouldn't she have just told Brian about that key?

    The key, the defense argued, would have easily opened any door in the house.
    Wells: If she wanted her mom dead, wouldn't it have been easier if she gave you a key?Arrant: It would have been easier, yes.

    And the defense questioned Jason's motive for implicating Rachelle, saying he'd gotten a "sweet deal," a plea agreement that would cut his prison time in half in exchange for testifying against Rachelle.
    Wells: This deal actually salvages your life, doesn't it?Arrant: Yes, it does.

    Defense attorney Wells claimed Arrant duped his best friend Brian Radel, convinced him Rachelle wanted her mother dead. Radel said all the talk of murder was coming only from Arrant.
    Wells: Did Rachelle Waterman ever ask you to kill her mother?Radel: No.Wells: Did Rachelle Waterman ever tell you, “I want my mom dead?”Radel: No.Wells: Did she ever come to you and say, “Let's figure out plans to get rid of my mom?”Radel: No.

    The defense then tried to explain Rachelle's seeming lack of concern as the plot to kill her mother grew.
    Dr. Marty Beyer, clinical psychologist: She thought that crying on Jason's shoulder about her mother was nothing more than venting.

    Wells called clinical psychologist Marty Beyer to the stand. She explained how Rachelle may not have fully appreciated the consequences of her actions -- her venting her problems about her mother to her boyfriend -- because teenagers use a different part of the brain than adults for decision-making, judgment and impulse control.
    Dr. Beyer: They can't think like an adult because they don't have an adult brain.

    And, the defense took on what looked like the most damning evidence: Rachelle's taped confession. The defense had already tried to suppress her confession, saying it had been coerced. But the judge allowed the confession to be admitted as evidence.

    So defense attorney Wells attacked the officers' methods, challenging sergeant Randy McPherron, one of the Alaska state troopers who interrogated Rachelle.
    Wells: You have in mind what you want her to say. Sgt. Randy McPherron: No -- I want her to --Wells: A certain set of facts.Sgt. McPherron: I want her to tell me the truth. Wells: You want her to say a certain set of facts, don't you?Sgt. McPherron: No, I’m not pre-arranging anything; all I want her is to tell me the truth.

    Defense attorney Wells asked, “If all they wanted was the truth, why did they ignore Rachelle when she said in the interrogation 19 times she told the killers she didn't want the murder to happen?”
    Rachelle (tape): I told them not to do it!

    But the officers just kept pressing and wells claimed, in the end, Rachelle -- exhausted and alone -- outwitted by older trained interrogators -- gave a false confession.
    Rachelle: Does it look like I’m gonna go to jail?Wells: The only way that she could see to get that door to open was to tell them what they wanted to hear.

    In closing, the defense said Rachelle never wanted her mother to die and it read from a letter written to Rachelle by her mother: a letter Rachelle kept in her nightstand:
    "I want us to be close and you be able to tell us things or just talk about nothing or anything. I wish you understood how much you're loved..."

    Rachelle Waterman faced up to 99 years in prison if convicted in her mother's murder.

    After a two week trial, Rachelle's fate would be determined by the jury's answer to the question: was she a calculating killer who orchestrated her own mother's death... or a naive teen who never wanted her mother to die -- but was manipulated by her older lover.
    Mike Schwab, juror: Too many pieces fit together like, you know, a jigsaw puzzle here and there. You can start to see what the picture looks like even though there's a piece missin' here, a piece missin' there, a piece missin' there.

    So jurors picked apart each piece, each tale that was told, beginning with who they thought was most responsible for the murder -- Rachelle or her one-time boyfriends Jason Arrant and Brian Radel. On this, they seemed to agree.
    Kelly Demars, juror: Jason.Dan Reierson, juror: Jason.Andrea Jones, juror: Jason.Larson: Jason? Almost everybody?Schwab: All equally. They didn't just pick Lauri Waterman out of the phonebook. I mean, come on.Larson: And Jason's motive was?Kelly Demars, juror: Rachelle. Get mom out of the way so he could be with Rachelle.

    And when it came to Jason, who testified that Rachelle sought his protection from an allegedly abusive mother, jurors agreed on one thing: the confessed killer would say anything to get Rachelle's mother out of the way.
    Larson: Did you wind up thinking he's the great manipulator here?Demars: Yes.Larson: He's the liar.Demars: Oh, yeah.Larson: And he's pulling strings both ways, both with Brian and with Rachelle.Demars: Yes.

    A for Brian, who says he went along with Jason's plan without even asking Rachelle if - in fact - she wanted her mother murdered...
    Larson: So Brian, you believe, really was just being played. He's like the biggest sucker of all time.Demars: Totally.

    And what about those stories, Rachelle's dramatic descriptions of abuse?
    Larson: Did you guys believe at all that Lauri Waterman was hitting her with baseball bats and-- Mike Schwab: No.Larson: Attempting to kill her and maybe sell her into prostitution?Kelly Demars: No.Mike Schwab: Absolutely not.Larson: So are we to believe that Rachelle is like, some sort of compulsive liar?Kelly Demars: Oh yeah. I would believe that.

    The jurors struggled over the significance of the interrogation video, sorting through all those conflicting stories Rachelle told. Some felt it was the strongest piece of evidence against her.
    Curtis Blackwell, juror: Well, it was the most damning evidence they had. Up until then, I was like, “Man, where are we going with this?” “Cuz I wasn't seeing anything until then.”Larson: Guys in the back? What'd you think about the confession?Schwab: Clinched it for me. (Laughter) What can I say? She admitted it.

    But several jurors bought the defense argument that Rachelle's confession was coerced, that she was broken down by seasoned officers.
    Demars: They didn't give her any room to talk.Jones: For a 15-year-old who's scared out of her mind, they're professionals. They know how to get people to talk. And I mean if she said, “Yes, I did it.” I don't even know if I would put a lot of weight on it just because through the whole thing she stuck with "no."

    The jury all agreed Rachelle had been involved, but to what degree? They would struggle with that very question for five days. And then, they would hand the judge a message no one wanted to hear.

    The jury had deadlocked -- 10 votes in favor of acquittal, two in favor of a guilty verdict.
    Larson: So you guys were the two guys holding out on guilty.Mark Kasberg, juror: Yeah. I think there's people saying "guilty," but they had the reasonable doubt in their minds.Larson: Yeah.Kasberg: I think a lot of people were there. The word “innocent” didn't come up very often.Schwab: No.

    Most of the jury was convinced Rachelle's tales of abuse had triggered the killing, and that she even knew her two friends were plotting murder, but weren't sure there was anything more to it than that. The foreman voted not guilty. And yet...
    Dan Reierson: I felt she was definitely involved.Larson: Involved how?Reierson: Involved in the fact that she probably at one point did say, “I want my mom dead.” But you know, “I’ve heard my own sister say, “I want my mom dead.”

    Some of the jurors cried as the deadlock was announced, frustrated they weren't able to reach a verdict.
    Jones: I still feel that she did not intend for her mother to die. And I didn't feel complete. I didn't feel like we finished it.Larson: Hadn't finished your job.Jones: Yeah.Demars: I felt a little bit like I let Rachelle down. We let Rachelle down.Blackwell: You know, I felt defeated. I don't think any of us would have felt good about totally letting her go.

    It would likely mean there would be a re-trial. In the meantime, Rachelle was sent back to prison— but not for long.

    17-year-old Rachelle Waterman had learned a jury could not agree on her guilt or innocence in the murder of her mother... and had been sitting in prison wondering what would happen next.
    Judge Patricia Collins: I have concluded that that testimony, should this case proceed yet again to trial, is inadmissible.

    In a blow to the prosecution, the same judge who allowed Rachelle's videotaped confession to be used in court threw it out, saying she now believed the confession had been coerced.
    Judge Patricia Collins: The indictment must also be dismissed.

    The judge then threw out the indictment as well, which meant there were no longer any charges pending against Rachelle. Rachelle and her father were overwhelmed.

    And so Rachelle was released from jail to her father's open arms. But even the Watermans' best friends say they doubt Rachelle will ever be welcome back in Craig, Alaska, the small village where so many loved her mother.
    Don Pierce, friend of the Waterman family: Even if she had been acquitted in the trial, just outright, homes where she'd been allowed to go in and parents would have welcomed her, she wouldn't be allowed in to.

    And Rachelle would find the same to be true in her own family.
    Don Martelli, Sr.: If she'd own up to it, say, “I’m very, very sorry this happened, should never have happened,” I’d feel a lot better about it.

    Rachelle's family found some comfort in one part of Rachelle's interrogation, played at trial, in which the teenager, without emotion, finally admitted she had exaggerated her stories of abuse -- those horrible stories that had set the murder in motion.
    Sgt. Randy McPherron (interrogation video): A little exaggeration there and a little overacting there - here, can have some dire consequences, right?(Rachelle nods)

    But with no verdict, the family's wounds remain open... and their questions remain about Rachelle's involvement.
    Dina Keyt, Rachelle’s aunt: I wanna think the best because I love her and she's my niece and she's still dear to me.

    Rachelle's grandfather and uncle are not as forgiving.
    Don Martelli, Sr.: Far as she's concerned, it's gone and forgotten. But it's not gone and forgotten with us.Don Martelli, Jr.: I’m pretty bitter about it and I don't know if I can forgive her.

    Rachelle's brother Geoffrey still has questions, but has never discussed their mother's murder with Rachelle.
    Larson: Do you feel like Rachelle loved your mom?Geoffrey Waterman, Rachelle’s brother: That is a tough question. I don't think I can answer that.Larson: What do you think your mom would want you to do with regards to your sister?Geoffrey Waterman: Love her. Always.Jason Arrant: What I did was a horrible thing, and I won't dispute that by pretending to be innocent.

    Jason Arrant pled guilty to first degree murder; all other charges against him were dropped. He was sentenced to 50 years in that plea deal to testify against Rachelle.

    As for Brian Radel, he has a lot of time to think. Although the other charges against him were dropped, he plead guilty to first degree murder and is now sitting in a prison in Alaska, serving a 99-year sentence for Lauri Waterman's murder.
    Larson: Have you ever really sat and thought on how terrified she must have been that night?Brian Radel: I think about it every night.Larson: To this day, do you think Rachelle was in danger for her life?Radel: No, I don't think so.Larson: Did you still love Rachelle?Radel: I still do.Larson: You still do?Radel: Yeah, I personally think she's a good person. I don’t think she wanted her mom killed.Larson: That was a hell of a mistake.Radel: Yeah.

    The prosecution has appealed the judge's decision to throw out Rachelle's confession and the indictment but it could be months before the appeals court hears the case. If it overturns the decision, a new grand jury will be convened to determine whether new charges should be pressed against Rachelle. Meanwhile, Rachelle is living out of state and working full-time.
    © 2006 MSNBC Interactive

    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13962555/
    Sunday, July 23rd, 2006
    8:01 pm
    [normalchick]
    I'm not sure if this is a repeat of an earlier Dateline show but for anyone on the west coast, they're airing a dateline episode on Rachelle right now, it just started.
    Wednesday, July 12th, 2006
    7:02 am
    [themindofcas]
    So that's it, huh?
    Friday, June 9th, 2006
    12:54 pm
    [foxbase]
    open for business!
    Steven Wells new law office is open! Huzzah!

    http://www.adn.com/money/story/7810838p-7724981c.html

    Criminal defense law office opens

    Steven M. Wells has opened a law office at 711 H St., Suite 450. He served seven years with the state Public Defender Agency and Office of Public Advocacy. His recent cases included the trials of Rachelle Waterman, a Craig teen charged with murdering her mother, and Matthew Owens, a Nome police officer charged with murder, he said. He is concentrating his practice on criminal defense -- state, federal, trial and appeals, he said. The phone is 279-3557.

    -- Anchorage Daily News
    9:27 am
    [foxbase]
    Rachelle in Idaho?
    check out this weird comment I got to one of the Rachelle news articles I posted. What to make of it? Anyone know if she has relatives in Idaho?

    It's from an anonymous person. See original here:

    http://community.livejournal.com/girlkilledmom/103186.html

    And reproduced here:

    I See HER EVERYDAY
    (Anonymous)
    2006-06-09 07:34 am UTC (link)
    I see her every day of my life.i was sceptical at first everyone said to look her up on the net and i finally did it... and its her. and this story is making its way around town. whether or not to believe it. where is her dad? with her? ive never seen him or heard of him. she works at a fast food place... lol cut her hair HELLA short and dresses gothic. and has a new boyfriend......
    idaho
    Saturday, April 22nd, 2006
    8:07 pm
    [foxbase]
    State files notice of appeals in Waterman murder case
    Well, this was expected, I guess. Weird statement about Rachelle living with relatives "Outside." Is that jailhouse lingo? Or is that an actual town up in Alaska? Hopefully Steven Wells, her lawyer, will have enough time to devote to her case when he goes into private practice.

    State files notice of appeals in Waterman murder case
    Published: April 22, 2006

    KETCHIKAN --
    State prosecutors have gone back to court to appeal rulings in the Rachelle Waterman murder case.

    Rachelle Waterman was 16 when the charred body of her mother, Lauri Waterman, was found in the family's minivan off a remote Prince of Wales Island logging road in November 2004.

    Susan Parkes, the deputy attorney general in charge of the criminal division, said Waterman's statement had been ruled admissible before the trial.

    "At a post-trial hearing to schedule a new trial date, the court, on its own motion, decided to suppress this same statement and dismiss this case," Parkes said. "Because the state was not given a meaningful opportunity to address this order, we believe both the manner and substance of Judge Collins' decision were erroneous.

    "Given the serious nature of the charges, we have elected to appeal this decision."

    The state Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals filed notice Wednesday that it would appeal.

    Assistant attorney general Douglas Kossler listed four points the state will ask the Alaska Court of Appeals to consider.

    Collins erred, Kossler wrote, by dismissing the statement without being asked and without first giving the parties a chance to respond. He also said the entire statement should not have been dismissed.

    The judge should not have dismissed the indictment and all charges against Waterman, Kossler wrote. Also, Collins should not have refused to allow a statement by another defendant at the trial, he wrote.

    Waterman, who had been in custody since her Nov. 19, 2004, arrest, was released on $5,000 bond in March and lives with relatives Outside.

    Her attorney, Steven Wells, estimated that the appeals process could take 18 to 24 months. A full transcript of the trial must be prepared, he said, followed by written briefs by both sides and hearings before the Court of Appeals.
    Friday, April 21st, 2006
    3:13 pm
    [foxbase]
    rachelle's lawyer
    Rachelle's defense lawyer is starting up his own private practice - looks like he's taking the fame he got from being in the Rachelle limelight and using it to his advantage..

    From his Alaskablawg - Law and Life in the Last Frontier (edited slightly for readability):

    http://alaskablawg.typepad.com/

    I've Got To Be Moving On
    April 08, 2006


    Before proceeding, I want to thank all of you who have commented, emailed, phoned or written to congratulate me for the decision in the Waterman case. It is truly humbling.

    This is one of the saddest and yet most exciting posts I have written. For the past several months, I have been doing a lot of soul searching regarding my future. I knew when I took this position that it would be for roughly three years, give or take a few months, maybe a year, on either side.

    Yesterday I announced my resignation from OPA. The reason is that this particular position will ultimately burn out whoever has it.

    That's right, I am now officially a short-timer. I talked with the head of my Agency and he was very understanding. For obvious reasons, he asked me to stay through the end of May/beginning of June to cover pending trials. And I will be able to take some cases with me when I leave.

    I'm heading into private practice, hanging out a shingle. I'm going to be renting space from a friend of mine who has his own office, which should minimize expenses and give me a good head start.

    Let me be clear, though, it is not only the schedule that prompts me to this decision. After all, I could have transferred within the Agency. I am choosing to go into private practice because I look forward to the freedom that allows. There are some things I want to do that I simply cannot right now. I would like, for example, to get into federal work, taking CJA cases. I am also interested in doing international work, which I cannot do right now. The Waterman case has provided me unprecedented publicity, which means that this is a good time to make this move. I don't want to imply that I am leaving because of the result in Waterman. Rather, as I've been examining options over the past few months, I expected to stay at least through the last two trials I have done. The result in the Waterman case just makes the decision more fortuitous.

    I will keep blawgging. In fact, I will be able to blawg from work once I start my firm. The first few months, that may be all that I do. I am really grateful to have had the opportunity to handle this position. It has taught me a great deal and I would like to think I've handled it well. Others can make that decision. For now, though, I know that I need to be moving on.
[ << Previous 20 ]
About LiveJournal.com

Advertisement