mom killed by girl

the "infamous blogger" in Craig, Alaska: Rachelle Waterman Update

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:02:04 GMT

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.

medical examiner who performed Lauri Waterman's post-morten dies of cancer

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:03:10 GMT

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.

The quiet return.

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:07:46 GMT

http://smchyrocky.livejournal.com

Almost seems kind of fitting after all of this time.

Was just clearing out some files

Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:31:48 GMT

And I came across this. Ah, memories.

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

rachelle makes another top 10 list!

Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:28:51 GMT

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.

Dateline

Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:03:03 GMT

The Rachelle story is going to be on Dateline NBC tonight. The show is on right now.

Rachelle Makes Top 10!

Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:26:52 GMT

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.

Rachelle Waterman, 16, was arrested for conspiring to have her mother murdered.

Waterman allegedly convinced two of her ex-boyfriends, including Jason Arrant, to murder her mother.

Brian Radel described for the jury how he attempted to murder Lauri Waterman.

Judge Patricia Collins threw out Waterman's taped confession, believing it was coerced.

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.

What do you think of Rachelle Waterman’s release from prison?

Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:13:32 GMT

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.

rachelle gets a mention...

Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:00:46 GMT

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.

Rachelle on Dateline

Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:50:53 GMT

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/

Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:04:31 GMT

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.

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:04:03 GMT

So that's it, huh?

open for business!

Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:56:44 GMT

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

Rachelle in Idaho?

Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:27:52 GMT

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

State files notice of appeals in Waterman murder case

Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:07:34 GMT

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.

rachelle's lawyer

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:16:04 GMT

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.

OFF TOPIC POS: myspace deaths

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:03:21 GMT

this is freaky but awesome:

http://mydeathspace.com/

Oh sure, now everybody and their dog is doing it...

Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:17:53 GMT

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=6413005

This guy killed his mother, then used her credit cards to hire a prostitute who he killed after she noticed his dead mother.

His full story is at http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=171227

rachelle still free

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:08:46 GMT

looks like rachelle can keep on living the free life for a bit longer. anyone talk to her yet?

Waterman decision will stand, judge says
COERCED: State plans appeal of case involving murder of mother.
(Published: March 21, 2006)

JUNEAU -- A Superior Court judge on Monday said she stands by her decision to throw out statements made by a Craig teen during a police interrogation after her mother's murder.

The state immediately said it will take the case to the Alaska Court of Appeals.

Judge Patricia Collins announced her decision during a status hearing in the case of Rachelle Waterman, accused of conspiring with two former boyfriends last year to kill her mother, Lauri Waterman, 48.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7551716p-7463294c.html

haha an editorial

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:07:20 GMT

this kind of wrapped around her finger stuff makes me laugh so much.

My turn: No justice in the courtroom; there should have been a verdict

Age is just a number. As we clearly know girls mature earlier than boys. Ms. Waterman is not 15 or 17 years of age. Ms. Waterman appeared to be an intelligent, manipulative, controlling, beautiful and matured young woman. She made no secret about the fact how much she hated her mom, as she had falsified, exaggerated and dramatized about her mom abusing her.

Ms. Waterman had those two men, who were immature high school dropouts with emotional problems, wrapped around her little finger like a couple of puppets while she was pulling her strings and expecting them to do her dirty work.

It was Ms. Waterman who had asked those men out on dates. Those young men were madly in love with her as she was their first love. They trusted her and believed her falsifications that she had told them about her mom. They were worried that her life was threatened and were willing to anything, even murder to protect her from her mom.

A sweet, caring, loving and worried mom was murdered after she had disciplined her daughter and had asked her to stay away from older men. After Lauri Waterman was brutally murdered, her only daughter's main concern was about her not inheriting her mom's van. She was also worried about taking over the responsibility of doing the laundry, which her mom had done until she was murdered.

The jury's verdict is not fair. It is not right, and it is certainly not just!

I want Ms. Waterman tried again. Innocent or guilty, the accused has the right to a fair trial and her fate should be determined by a mature and responsible jury who are able to respect children's, parents', grandparents' and elders' rights more than "jelly fish" jury.

Although Southeast Alaska is spread apart, it is small and the people are very much knitted together. I also would like to suggest that Ms. Waterman trial should be moved to Anchorage where she would be able to receive a fair trial in a court of law.

• Theresa Davis is a Juneau resident.

Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:45:47 GMT

Article Last Updated: 03/17/2006 6:05 PM AKST

State asks judge to reconsider decision in Waterman case
Associated Press

The state Friday asked a judge to reconsider her decision to throw out the state's centerpiece evidence against Rachelle Waterman.
Last week, Superior Court Judge Patricia Collins, suppressed statements that Rachelle Waterman, then 16, made to police in the days following the November 2004, murder of her mother, 48-year-old Lauri Waterman.

Since the state used those statements to secure a grand jury indictment against the teen, Collins last week also dismissed all charges against her.

Deputy Attorney General Susan Parkes today filed a motion asking Collins to revisit her decision to suppress the statements. The state is claiming Collins did so at her own initiative and not at the request of Waterman's lawyer.

Parkes is asking Collins not only to revisit the decision, but allow the state to argue against it by presenting evidence and addressing points of law.

Waterman's attorney, Steven Wells, did not immediately return messages left Friday.

Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:21:37 GMT

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/teen.freed.ap/index.html

She walks free.

rachelle: the face of evil close up

Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:14:05 GMT

Wonder what the face of evil is doing today?

http://www.sitnews.us/0306Viewpoints/031006_dave_hanger.html

Viewpoints

TIME FOR SOME HEADS TO ROLL
By David G. Hanger

March 09, 2006
Thursday PM

There is no crime more heinous than patricide or matricide. Unfortunately, the law in Ketchikan cannot get it right, and two of these little cretins are walking among us today as I write this. Why? Because some cop has to lie to cajole a confession out of a minor, or because of some other screw-up.

We need prosecutors who can successfully prosecute and law officers properly trained so they don't screw up the chain of evidence. Losing one such case is a disgrace. Losing two is evidence of gross incompetence. We need a new prosecutor locally, and whoever is training or managing these state troopers needs to be fired and replaced. God help anyone and everyone who ends up associating in any way with these two little cretins that are free and walking among us today. You are looking at the face of evil close up.

David G. Hanger
Ketchikan, AK - USA

About: David Hanger is a long time resident of Ketchikan.

http://www.sitnews.us/0306Viewpoints/031406_john_maki.html

Looking for Heads to Roll
By John Maki

March 14, 2006
Tuesday

Mr. David Hanger's viewpoint speaks of the law in Ketchikan. Later in his letter he gets a little more specific and I think he is referring to an incident that happened in the borough a few years ago and the Waterman Case from Prince of Wales Island. These were not City of Ketchikan cases.

The United States Supreme Court along with individual states recognizes a thing called Choice of Evils. Committing a small evil is justified to prevent a greater one or in the interest of a greater Good. Choosing one "evil" over another is sometimes a part of our everyday life: "Dear, do I look fat in this dress?" (Lie, die or be married to a saint)

The law takes the choice of evils concept and turns it into a defense. It's OK to punch someone in the nose if it is done in self-defense.

Ninety-nine percent of the time officers must be totally honest in their dealings with the public but there are a couple of exceptions. An undercover cop, to do an effective job, has to be really good in his/her deception, looking and talking the part, using subterfuge and lying in the interest of the greater public good. It's hard to get large amounts of drugs off the street any other way.

Due Process means following the rules. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that lying to try to gain the truth is permissible in serious cases. Making someone believe that law enforcement has more information than it actually does is a tactic that is sometimes used as an investigative tool to arrive at the truth, and in the interest of justice. What matters is whether a confession is voluntary and reveals the truth.

The Judge in the Waterman Case used her knowledge of statutes and of case law (previously decided cases) to reach her conclusions. Another judge might have reached a different conclusion. The Justice System we have sets up checks and balances called the appeal process. Her ruling can be overruled by a higher court (Appellate) that; in turn, could be set aside by the Alaska Supreme Court. Then it could go on to the Federal system, where ultimately, the U. S. Supreme Court could decide the matter. In a tie, four to four vote, one Supreme Court justice has the authority to change a case, law and history, and even then, mistakes can be made. (Goggle Dred Scott)

Among the hats that officers must wear is that of legal scholar. Without the benefit of law school, legal and ethical decisions made in an instant by officers may be scrutinized by a prosecutor (before even accepting a case to prosecute), a judge and by a jury. They can take all the time they want.

I don't jump to a conclusion that the officers conducting the interview of Rachelle Waterman erred, or in any way tried to deprive her of her Constitutional Rights. I would rather think they tried as best they could to seek truth and justice. If they and many others did not strongly believe in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the suspect, there would not have been a trial.

Lying to a suspect or possibly getting away with murder or other hideous crime: Which is the lesser of two evils?

John Maki
Ketchikan, AK - USA

About: John Maki is the Deputy Chief of Police in Ketchikan and previously directed and taught law courses in a Police Academy in Colorado.

Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:53:02 GMT

now that she is back ni the news more
im gonna be getting a shit load more of emails to deny

the latest over at Alaskablawg

Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:38:45 GMT

A couple of entries from Rachelle's lawyer's blog about the case from the past month or so.

Great decision

from: March 07, 2006

I think that today was the best day of my professional life (at least, so far). I posted below about my recent hung verdict in which the court invited briefing for the MJOA. Today the court issued its decision on the MJOA.

Technically, the court did not grant the MJOA. Noting that 2 jurors had voted to convict, the court held that reasonable people could disagree about the evidence and as such would not grand an MJOA. However, the court reconsidered my motion to suppress my client's statements. Last August, I had conducted an evidentiary hearing to suppress some statements in which my client said she knew about the plot to kill her mother. That motion was denied.

At trial, I attacked the police officers who interrogated my client. I argued that the jury should disregard her statements because they were coerced. The trial court today, based on the evidence at the trial, reconsidered its denial of my motion to suppress. In a decision based extensively on a review of the facts presented at trial and how they contradicted some of the state's assertions at the evidentiary hearing, the court suppressed the statements of my client for a further trial.

I had also moved to dismiss the indictment, since it was based in large part on my client's statements. That motion was denied pre-trial. Today, however, the court granted that motion. Technically, there are no charges pending against my client. There is some other evidence not affected by the court's ruling, so the State can re-indict or the State can appeal the court's ruling. I don't know what the state will do. Since the decision is based so heavily on factual analysis, it would seem that an appellate court would overturn the trial court's decision only if the court is "clearly erroneous", an extremely difficult standard to meet. Further, the main evidence against my client now is the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator, which is legally insufficient to warrant a conviction.

I do not know how everything will turn out, but I do know that the State right now really has no case and they have a very tough row to hoe to get the court's decision overturned. My client is in custody right now, but the bail conditions have been so lowered that it is expected that she should make bail soon. Court TV has a good story and the look on my client's face certainly shows how we view this latest development. I am still in a state of shock over this.

A friend of mine wrote that this job, with its intense battles, provides lows and highs that are simply incomprehensible elsewhere. He compared it to being a jazz musician on heroin - it feels great while you're up there playing, flowing with the music, but the come downs are a son of a bitch. For right now, though, I'm just up there playing, flowing with the music. If I could bottle this feeling, I would make a billion dollars. Of course, I would also be prosecuted by the FDA, DEA, ATF, ANT (Alaska Narcotics Teams) and various other agencies. To protect myself, then, I am afraid that I will not bottle this feeling but will rather selfishly sip it. Sort of like that 2003 Argyle Spirithouse Pinot discussed below.

note this comment from this entry:

Great job! As a former teenage girl growing up in Craig I was pullin' for her the whole way. I know how it was and your defense was perfect. Older men solicit younger girls all the time there. They should have prosecuted for statutory rape and this never would have happened. Didn’t law enforcement testify they knew exactly who to go to because of the relationship? Hmmm maybe they should have acted sooner. You should feel great about this victory and helping a good family! Your interest in fine wine is a bonus.

Posted by: Craig Girl | March 09,

Hang 10!

from February 15, 2006

As you may have read or learned, the jury ultimately hung. However, there are several bright spots. First, the vote was 10-2 for acquittal, not a bad day in anyone's book, particularly when the client makes a statement. Second, it looks like the jury had real questions about the prosecution's theory and witnesses.

At the close of the State's case, I made the standard motion for judgment of acquittal, which was taken under advisement. After the jury announced that it was deadlocked, the court started to set a status hearing. I asked to be heard, intending to raise the outstanding MJOA, but the court said that she would let me speak in a moment. She set a hearing and then raised the MJOA herself, asking that I brief my motion with time for the prosecutor to reply. I have never had, nor have I ever heard of, a judge asking for briefing on an outstanding MJOA. While I obviously do not know if she will grant it, that is certainly not a bad sign.

We started this case with people literally across the world reviling my client and we came to this trial and showed that the State was wrong. I cannot consider this anything but a win and I will try it again and again and again and again if necessary.

On other notes, I must confess to having blatantly plagiarized the phrase 'lying sack of snitch' from Jodie English, both from NCDC and other CLEs I have attended. I also have to thank Louis Menendez and Jack McGee, two lawyers in Juneau, and also Tres Lewis, my investigator, for all of their help. Thanks for all of your encouragement and comments.