pennsylvania | My Crime Library

Don Tedford Pennsylvania Death Row

Don Tedford was sentenced to death by the State of Pennsylvania for the sexual assault and murder of a woman. According to court documents Don Tedford who was an inmate on work release would sexually assaut and murder the 22 year old woman. Don Tedford would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death

Don Tedford 2021 Information

Parole Number: 3986J
Age: 70
Date of Birth: 03/30/1951
Race/Ethnicity: WHITE
Height: 5′ 10″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: LIGHT
Current Location: PHOENIX

Permanent Location: PHOENIX
Committing County: BUTLER

Don Tedford More News

The facts of this case are as follows: In the fall of 1985, the victim Jeanine Revak, a 22-year-old woman who had been married for eight months, was seeking to pursue a career in interior decorating. She had studied interior design at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh and was attempting to obtain full-time employment in that field. During that time she held two part-time jobs. She worked as a part-time floral designer at a flower shop known as By Janice Flower Shop. Also, she worked part-time as an interior designer for a company called Decoratif’s.

In late October or early November, 1986, Jeanine Revak visited an interior design and decorating store in the Cranberry Shopping Plaza, Cranberry Township, Butler County, known as The Finishing Touch. The Finishing Touch store in Cranberry was a part of a two store interior decorating business owned by Robert Sasso. There, Jeanine Revak met the appellant Donald M. Tedford who was employed by Robert Sasso, and was in charge of the Cranberry Plaza store. At that time, the appellant was an inmate at the State Correctional Institution in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, but had achieved acceptance into a work release program which permitted him to leave the prison daily to work at his job at The Finishing Touch. The victim presented her *311 portfolio to the appellant and inquired about possible employment. The appellant interviewed the victim and examined the portfolio with her. Although the victim was not offered a position at that time, she apparently was encouraged by the appellant that a job may soon be available and that she should keep in touch with him.

On Friday, January 10, 1986, the victim was recovering from an illness which caused her to be absent from her two part-time positions all of the previous days of that week. Because of her illness, she was not scheduled to work at either of her jobs. When her husband, James Revak, left for work at 7:30 a.m. that morning, she told him that she intended to stay at home all day. During the day, from his job, James Revak telephoned home to talk to his wife but there was no answer. Also, Grace Labrise, who worked with the victim at By Janice Flower Shop attempted to reach the victim by telephone five or six times during that day. Ms. Labrise’s first call was in the morning at approximately at 10:00 o’clock a.m. Her last call was placed sometime in the afternoon. Each time Grace Labrise called she did not get an answer. When James Revak returned home from work at approximately 5:30 p.m., the victim was not there. Her nightgown was on the bed and some of her clothes were strewn about on the upstairs floor. James Revak testified that it was very unusual to find his wife’s clothes thrown about on the floor. Further, he found no note explaining her absence.

Meanwhile, at approximately noon on Friday, January 10, 1986, Gary Scheller, a truck driver for Bennett Supply Company, stopped at The Finishing Touch in Cranberry Plaza with a delivery of a container of glue. When he arrived he parked his truck and carried the product to the door. He attempted to enter the store through the front door but found that the door was locked. Just as he set the container on the ground, the appellant opened the door and let him in the store. Mr. Scheller saw a very attractive young lady in the store with the appellant. The appellant admitted that the attractive young lady in the store at the *312 time of the delivery was the victim Jeanine Revak. Mr. Scheller asked the appellant if the store was closed for lunch. The appellant answered that they, the young lady and he, were getting ready to go out on a service call.

Lynn Kampers, an employee of The Finishing Touch at the other location at Babcock Boulevard, Allegheny County, testified that she saw the appellant on the morning of January 10, 1986, when she brought his pet cat back to him at the Cranberry store. Because of a sensitive burglar alarm the cat could not be left alone in the store overnight. As a favor to the appellant, she had taken the cat home with her the previous evening. Lynn Kampers testified that, on that Friday morning, she noticed the appellant looked rather tired and smelled of alcohol. Later that day, at approximately 4:30 p.m., she spoke to the appellant on the telephone when he called the Babcock Boulevard store and asked for permission to close early. Appellant told Ms. Kampers it was a quiet day; that he was not busy at all. It is unclear from the record whether appellant was given permission to close early.

Elizabeth Manuel, a friend of the appellant Donald Tedford, telephoned the appellant at The Finishing Touch on Friday, January 10, 1986, after she arrived home from work. It was approximately 5:30 p.m. when she placed the call. She remembered, that the appellant answered the phone that day by just saying “hello.” Every other time she had called him at the store he answered by saying “The Finishing Touch,” even when the store was closed. She asked appellant if they were going to get together later that night. Appellant told her he was real busy, and he asked if he could call her later. Since she had to leave the house and run some errands, she called appellant again at about 6:00 p.m. Appellant said he was swamped with work and he would call her later. When Ms. Manuel left to go on her errands, she drove past The Finishing Touch. She noticed that the store was dark. She said that normally, the store is lit up at night, with spotlights on the displays. Appellant did call her twice later that evening and then *313 visited her house, arriving at about 9:30 p.m. He was wearing jeans, a ski sweater and boots. The appellant stayed until about 11:00 p.m. when he told Ms. Manuel he had to leave and go to the north side of Pittsburgh to meet a friend. He mentioned that he belonged to a Vietnam Veterans group and one of the persons in that group was in some trouble.[2] He asked if he could come back later. Ms. Manuel agreed to leave the door open for appellant and he did return at about 4:00 a.m. When he arrived back, Ms. Manuel was in bed. She did not notice what the appellant was wearing when he returned. The next morning, however, as he was leaving, she did notice that he was wearing shoes instead of the boots he was wearing the previous evening. Ms. Manuel identified the ski sweater offered in evidence as the sweater the appellant was wearing when he was at her home on Friday evening, January 10, 1986.

Linda McNamee, a friend of the appellant, testified that she stopped by The Finishing Touch on Friday, January 10, 1986, to pay a social call on Donald Tedford. It was approximately 5:30 p.m. when she arrived. She observed that the inside of the store was dark except for a light shining in the office toward the rear of the premises. Every other time that she had been to or had gone by The Finishing Touch after dark, the premises were well lit. On this particular evening, the premises were dark. She knocked on the door and stood outside for about three minutes. Just as she was preparing to leave, she noticed one of the buttons on the telephone begin to blink, indicating an incoming call. When the blinking stopped and the line remained lit, she knew that someone was in the store and had answered the phone. She knocked again and waited a while longer. The appellant, wearing jeans and a *314 ski sweater finally came to the door and, by means of hand signals, he told her that he could not let her in the store because the door was locked and he did not have the key. The appellant indicated that the owner of the store had been there earlier and had taken the key to the door with him when he departed. Ms. McNamee left and went home. Later, at about 7:00 p.m., she placed a phone call to The Finishing Touch. The appellant answered the phone. He explained again that he could not open the door and let her in when she was at the store earlier because the owner had taken the key. Contrary to appellant’s explanation, the evidence established that Robert Sasso, the owner of the store, was not at The Finishing Touch premises in Cranberry at any time on Friday, January 10, 1986, and the appellant’s story about the owner taking the key was a fabrication. Further, even if the front door was locked and he did not have the key, the store had a rear door with a panic bar which the appellant could have easily opened to allow Ms. McNamee to enter.

Later that evening, when the victim did not come home, James Revak attempted to locate her. He called the places where she was employed without success. At about 11:30 p.m. he called The Finishing Touch. The appellant, who identified himself as “Don,” answered the phone. James Revak explained who he was and asked the appellant if he remembered his wife Jeanine. The appellant indicated that he did remember her; that she was a very talented girl; but, he had not seen her that day. On Saturday morning James Revak called the Cranberry Township Police and reported his wife Jeanine missing.

Raymond Eppinger, testified that he was employed at the Gulf service station next to the Shopping Plaza where The Finishing Touch is located. He began work at 10:00 p.m. on Friday, January 10, 1986. At approximately 1:00 a.m., one hour past midnight on Saturday, January 11, 1986, the appellant stopped at the Gulf service station in a dark color 280-Z automobile and bought a pack of Pall Mall cigarettes. He had a brief conversation with appellant about a truck *315 that was parked in the shopping plaza and then left. Other evidence established that the appellant did drive a dark color 280-Z and smoked Pall Mall cigarettes.

Alice Sloan worked at The Finishing Touch with the appellant. On Saturday morning January 11, 1986, her automobile was being repaired. Ms. Sloan, knowing that she would not have her automobile for transportation on Saturday morning, arranged to have the appellant drive her to work. Appellant, as arranged, picked up Ms. Sloan at her home in his green, 280-Z Datsun automobile. She remembers that appellant’s vehicle was very clean, inside and outside, and she mentioned this to the appellant. The appellant told her that he had just cleaned his car.

At about 9:30 or 10:00 a.m. on Saturday morning, Mr. Revak, along with his father-in-law, went to The Finishing Touch. There they met the appellant, identified themselves, referred to the phone call the previous night, and inquired about the victim. The appellant reiterated that he had not seen her. The appellant asked for a telephone number where he could reach Mr. Revak in case he would happen to see the victim. James Revak wrote his unlisted telephone number (which was also the victim’s number) on a piece of paper and left it with the appellant. Evidence showed that this request was unnecessary as appellant already had the victim’s telephone number written on his desk blotter. Later, James Revak found the victim’s automobile parked some distance away in the Pines Plaza Shopping Center, but no trace of the victim.

On Saturday, January 11, 1986, David Lijewski and his brother Harry were out hunting small game in State Games Lands in Washington County, Pennsylvania. (It was the last day of the extended small game season.) The weather that Saturday was rather pleasant for January. It was generally a nice day, with the temperature between the mid 30’s and 40 degrees. At approximately 12:30 p.m., while walking along the shoulder of a single lane, rural, black top road, David Lijewski came across a young woman’s body. The shoulder of the road consists of gravel and earth, *316 running over a slight embankment and turning into brush. According to David Lijewski, the body was lying about 6 or 7 feet off the shoulder of the road. The rigid state of the body and its discoloration led Mr. Lijewski to believe that she was dead. Neither he nor his brother touched or disturbed the body or the area around the body. The dead woman was wearing a red jacket, black slacks, and a white blouse. After making this grim discovery, David and Harry Lijewski gathered their hunting dogs and walked back to the car. David stayed at the car while Harry walked to the nearest house and called the police.

Edward S. Peters, a Pennsylvania State Police Criminalist Investigator arrived at the scene of the body at approximately 1:00 p.m. When he arrived, State Trooper George Titler, who had arrived a short time earlier, was photographing the scene. David and Harry Lijewski were also at the scene. The body of the victim was lying in the exact position that it was found. She had on a red jacket, a silk blouse, black slacks, one mesh stocking, gold earrings, gold necklace and wedding band. She was not wearing shoes. The missing stocking and missing shoes were never found. When the body was turned over it was discovered that her slacks were unfastened and the zipper was down. When the investigator checked under her blouse he found that her bra was pushed up over her breasts. The slacks and jacket were relatively clean except for the presence of some foreign items which were identified as blood, weeds, and thin, fiber type material. The body was examined at the scene, placed in a plastic body bag and transported to the Washington County Hospital Morgue where an autopsy was performed.

The Chief Deputy Coroner of Washington County, Ernest L. Abernathy, performed the autopsy and determined the cause of death to be ligature strangulation. A cord ligature, a rope-like structure, was placed around her neck and tightened very tightly until it produced death. An external examination of the body revealed that the victim had bruises on her left shin sort of an abrasion, scraping mark. *317 There were bruises on her right leg. There was considerable reddish discoloration of the left hand. A laceration on the back of the head had produced a great deal of hemorrhage. A small depressed mark in the form of a little scratch or bruise was noted above the left eyebrow. The autopsy further revealed that the victim’s lungs were completely collapsed in the chest cavity. The collapsed lungs indicated that air was cut off and totally blocked. There was sharp line on her larynx corresponding to the ligature mark on her neck. There were hemorrhages in the thyroid gland and some small hemorrhages in the conjunctiva of the eye. There was bloody fluid in her windpipe. Examination of the brain revealed a contrecoup wound. The coroner explained that this is a wound which occurs when someone is hit on one side of the head and the brain hits against the opposite side of the skull, so the damage is produced on the side opposite from the external impact. There was a heavy blow with hemorrhage on the right back of the head and hemorrhage over the brain mostly on the left front of the brain. The hemorrhage overlying most of the left front of the brain was quite extensive.

The body, when found, was sprawled and in an unnatural position. This suggested that the victim died elsewhere, and rigidity was complete when the body was dropped where it was found. The Deputy Coroner stated that since this was a violent death and the victim was a young woman with well developed muscles, that rigor mortis would come on quite quickly possibly within an hour or two.

The Commonwealth introduced into evidence the slip of paper which set forth the name “Jim Revak” and his unlisted telephone number. This was the paper given to the appellant by the victim’s husband on Saturday morning, January 11, 1986 when the appellant asked him where he could be reached. Also introduced into evidence was an old calendar page taken from a blotter on a desk at The Finishing Touch with the victim’s unlisted phone number written in the appellant’s handwriting in the lower left hand corner. The victim’s unlisted phone number was known to *318 the appellant before it was given to him by Mr. Revak that Saturday morning. (R. 111.)

From January 10, to January 12, 1986, the appellant had a furlough from prison. He was scheduled to be back in his cell at 9:00 p.m. on Monday, January 13, 1986. He did not report back at that time. His failure to return was reported immediately to the State Police. Since the appellant was employed in Cranberry Township, the State Police transmitted the report to the Cranberry Township Police Department that appellant was considered an escapee.

On Monday night, January 13, 1986, Elizabeth Manuel was interviewed by the state police at the Cranberry Police Station. After her interview, officer Jeff Widdowson of the Cranberry Township Police escorted Ms. Manuel home from the police station. When they arrived at her residence both of them noticed a white Ford automobile parked between Ms. Manuel’s residence and the neighboring house. Officer Widdowson found the appellant asleep behind the wheel with the motor running. After radioing for assistance and waiting a reasonable time for help to arrive, Officer Widdowson arrested the appellant and took him into custody. The appellant was arrested on the basis of the state police advisory that he was a fugitive for failing to return to prison when his furlough ended.

Pursuant to a Search Warrant, authorities seized head hairs, pubic hairs, blood and saliva of the appellant. The pubic hair found on the victim’s panties was consistent with the pubic hair of the appellant. Two stains on the victim’s slacks were examined and found to contain seminal fluid. Tests of the vaginal area including vaginal swabs indicated the presence of sperm cells and seminal fluid. Tests involving blood groupings and genetic characteristics revealed that the seminal fluid could have been deposited by the appellant. Those same tests ruled out the possibility of the seminal fluid being deposited by her husband.

Additionally, appellant’s ski sweater, removed from appellant’s car pursuant to a search to which he consented was introduced into evidence. Red synthetic fibers removed *319 from the victim’s blouse and red synthetic fibers removed from appellant’s ski sweater were found to have the same microscopic characteristics. The ultimate source of those fibers could not be determined. Certain polyprophyrin fibers obtained from the victim’s jacket and from carpet backing from The Finishing Touch were microscopically examined and it was determined that they matched. Certain vegetable fibers found on the victim’s clothing were microscopically examined and compared with vegetable fibers taken from The Finishing Touch and it was determined that they were similar. The clothing of the victim was loaded with lint and was not in a condition that you would expect a person to wear. The victim’s house and wardrobe were examined and it was determined that the fibers found on her clothing could not have come from her home or wardrobe. Pennsylvania State Police Criminalist Scott Ermlick testified that it is unusual to find three different types of foreign fibers on a victim’s clothing. He testified that, contrary to popular belief, it is not very common to find a cross transfer of fibers and hairs.

Michael Ferry, a prisoner at the Armstrong County Jail testified that sometime after appellant’s arrest, he met and got to know appellant while he and appellant were together in the Butler County Jail. (TT., p. 379.) He played cards with the appellant and helped him and others with legal questions and court papers. (TT., p. 380.) Michael Ferry testified that the appellant told him that the victim, Jeanine Revak, had come to The Finishing Touch seeking employment. The appellant said that he promised to give her a job. (TT., p. 380.) On the day in question, appellant said he phoned the victim and told her he was on the road working and he needed her help. (TT., p. 380.) If she wanted to work she was to come and meet him at a place that was away from the store. (TT., p. 380.) He did not meet her at The Finishing Touch. (TT., p. 380.) She agreed and met the appellant at the place he designated. (Apparently, that place was the Pines Plaza Shopping Center where the victim’s automobile was found.) The appellant said that he *320 took the victim in his automobile and, on the pretense that he had to stop back at the store, he drove to The Finishing Touch premises. (TT., p. 380.) The appellant described the victim as “good looking” and having a “nice body.” (TT., p. 380.) Sometime after they arrived at the store, the appellant made a pass at the victim which she resisted. (TT., p. 380-81.) The appellant said that he was “hot” for her and he persisted in his efforts to seduce her. (TT., p. 381.) The appellant said that the victim kept resisting and became upset and frightened, but he eventually forced her to engage in a sexual act with him. (TT., p. 381.) Appellant stated that the forced sex caused the victim to become more upset and hysterical. She would not calm down. The appellant said he had to “ring her neck.” (TT., p. 381.) The appellant told Michael Ferry that he killed the victim because he was concerned that she might report him to the police and he would lose everything he had, including his work release status. (TT., p. 381.) Finally, the appellant, in responding to a question about his automobile, told Michael Ferry that he, the appellant, thoroughly cleaned his car, going over it with a “finetooth comb.” (TT., p. 382.) Michael Ferry testified that he discussed the crime with the appellant several times and it was over the course of those several conversations that the appellant told him how he lured the victim to the store, forced her to have sex with him and then killed her to prevent her from reporting him to the authorities.

Christopher White met the appellant in the Butler County jail sometime after the appellant’s arrest. He came to know the appellant by bringing him his meals everyday. (TT., p. 408, 415-16.) Occasionally he would talk with the appellant about the crime the appellant was charged with committing. Christopher White testified that the appellant told him he had raped and killed the victim, Jeanine Revak. (TT., p. 409.) The appellant told White that he killed her because, “he figured she was going to go to the police,” and report the rape. (TT., p. 409.) The appellant told him that *321 after he murdered the victim, he dropped her body in a wooded area in Washington County. (TT., p. 422.)

Officer Bernard W. Stanek of the Pennsylvania State Police testified that a piece of the information that Michael Ferry said he had obtained from the appellant was previously unknown to the police, namely, the information pertaining to the reason why the victim’s automobile was found in the Pines Plaza Shopping Center, almost a mile from The Finishing Touch. The fact that the appellant arranged to meet Jeanine Revak on the road, away from The Finishing Touch store premises explained why the victim’s car was located at a distant shopping plaza.

The appellant, testifing on his behalf, stated that he met Jeanine Revak in late October or early November, 1985 when she came to The Finishing Touch store in search of a job and presented her portfolio to him. Appellant stated that after that first meeting, he and the victim formed a friendship. He said that she would stop by the store once or twice a week. When she did not stop to see him, she would call. According to the appellant he and the victim eventually developed a close intimate relationship. He stated that once a week they would have sexual intercourse on the floor of his office. The appellant testified that a little before 12:00 noon on Friday, January 10, 1986, the victim unexpectedly walked into The Finishing Touch store to see him. Shortly after the victim arrived, a delivery man from U.P.S. made a delivery to the store. Appellant stated that soon after the delivery man left, he and the victim went into his office where the victim disrobed and they had sexual intercourse on a mat he placed on the floor. According to the appellant, after he and the victim had sex, the victim dressed and left the store. Appellant stated that the victim was in The Finishing Touch store that day for a total of thirty to forty-five minutes. He said that after she departed he did not see or hear from her again. It is evident from the verdict that the jury did not believe that appellant’s sexual contact with the victim on January 10, 1986 was consensual as he claimed.

https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/1989/523-pa-305-1.html

Randy Haag Pennsylvania Death Row

Randy Haag was sentenced to death by the State of Pennsylvania for the murder of a man. According to court documents Randy Haag would shoot and kill Richard Good after kidnapping the man following a drug dispute. Randy Haag would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to death

Randy Haag 2021 Information

Parole Number: 1209S
Age: 63
Date of Birth: 04/12/1958
Race/Ethnicity: WHITE
Height: 5′ 08″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: LIGHT
Current Location: PHOENIX

Permanent Location: PHOENIX
Committing County: BERKS

Randy Haag More News

The incident from which the convictions arose took place in Berks County where appellant and several cohorts kidnapped and shot an individual, Richard Good, and then disposed of the body in a river. The evidence linking appellant to the crime consisted of, inter alia, the following.

One of Randy Haag’s acquaintances, Steven Grynastyl, testified that one evening in February or March of 1982 he received a phone call from a friend, Michael Slote, who informed him that appellant was “all cranked up” and wanted to kill Richard Good that night. Grynastyl went immediately to Slote’s residence, where he met with Slote, appellant, and another acquaintance, Howard Weisman. Appellant offered $5,000.00 for Slote and Grynastyl to kill Good immediately with a high-powered rifle, wrap the body in carpet, weight it down, and dump it in a lake or river. Appellant and Weisman then decided, however, that it would be too risky to go through with the killing that night, due to the fact that freshly fallen snow would leave traces *394 of footprints. Grynastyl also testified that, approximately one week previous to this, he heard appellant express a desire that Good be killed because Good owed appellant and Weisman money for cocaine purchases.

Months later, on July 14, 1982, Slote had a conversation with Good’s daughter, Vickie Lee Good. Miss Good testified that Slote asked her to have her father call him later that day because Slote expected to receive some cocaine. Around 10:00 p.m. that evening, Miss Good was dispatched by her father, who earned his living as a drug dealer, to a pay phone to call Slote and inquire whether the cocaine was available. Slote then told her to have her father come, alone, to see him after 11:00 p.m. Good departed at the appointed hour, in his black Corvette, and was never again seen alive by his daughter. Good planned to visit his girlfriend after stopping to see Slote, but never arrived at her house. Miss Good testified, also, that her father owed money to Slote and appellant for drugs, and that, a year earlier, her father and appellant had been involved in an altercation with one another.

An individual who resided in a townhouse with appellant and Weisman at the time of the crime, Van Scott Peters, who worked as a drug runner for Randy Haag, testified that he visited Slote’s house late in the evening of July 14, 1982. He was taken there by appellant, Weisman, and one Michael Sands. Upon arriving there, appellant instructed everyone to wait in Slote’s bedroom so that Good, who was expected to arrive soon, would not see them. Peters had previously heard appellant say that he disliked Good and that Good owed him money. When Good arrived, he was led into the bedroom by Slote, whereupon Sands pointed a rifle at him. Slote and Weisman grabbed Good, and appellant took the rifle from Sands and began beating Good with the rifle butt. Randy Haag then yelled at Good and punched him repeatedly, causing him to fall to the floor, after which appellant, Weisman, and Slote tied him up and carried him to the basement. Randy Haag then directed Peters and Sands to watch that Good did not untie himself. Less than an hour *395 later, around midnight, while Good was still alive, appellant gave Peters some money, cocaine, and the keys to Good’s black Corvette and told him to drive the car to Florida. Peters, accompanied by Sands, departed immediately and drove to Hollywood, Florida, where they stored the car.

On July 20, 1982, police were alerted when Good’s body was discovered by a fisherman at the Susquehanna River. Good had been shot in the head, and his body was partially submerged, having been bound in rope, wrapped in carpet, and weighted down with concrete blocks and chains secured by a connecting link and padlock.

Peters testified that, upon his return to Berks County from Florida, appellant and Weisman told him that the Pennsylvania State Police wanted to talk to him and that he had been spotted in Florida in the black Corvette. They instructed Peters to tell the police that he had been driving in Florida until his car broke down and that a man in a black Corvette picked him up. Appellant chastised Weisman for not having attached sufficient weight to Good’s body to keep it submerged. Appellant also instructed Peters to remove a concrete block from outside their townhouse and to travel in appellant’s car to a garage that appellant used for storage, and to remove all of the carpet scraps from the garage. Weisman and Peters later dumped the block and the carpeting into a landfill dump site, for appellant had instructed them to dispose of the items. Weisman told appellant and Peters that a length of chain should be purchased and kept on hand, since police might become suspicious if they found out that Weisman purchased a chain at Leinbach Hardware Store just before Good’s death. The chain had been used to bind Good’s body for disposal. Hence, Peters and Weisman purchased a new chain at a different hardware store.

Peters testified further that, on July 14, 1982, when Good was attacked at the Slote residence, yet another individual, Bruce Ream, was present in the house. Ream did not participate in the criminal incident. He resided in Slote’s *396 house, and remained in another bedroom throughout most of the evening.

The testimony of Sands was also presented at trial. Sands substantiated in all major respects the account given by Peters as to the events which occurred at Slote’s residence on the evening of July 14, 1982. Sands had not, however, noticed the presence of Ream in Slote’s house that night.

Next, Ream testified that he resided in one of the bedrooms at Slote’s house, and that he had gone to bed around 9:30 p.m. on the evening in question. Slote had earlier said to him, “Tonight’s the night.” He remained in his bedroom with the door closed all evening and emerged only briefly on one occasion, at which time he saw appellant, Slote, Weisman, Peters, and Sands in another bedroom snorting cocaine. After returning to his bedroom, he heard a number of sounds through the thin walls. He heard a car arrive, and then heard Slote answer the door. Good’s voice was detected, and a number of people started yelling. Ream heard appellant say, “You’re going swimming.” He then heard something being dragged down the basement steps, and an argument ensued in the basement. Shortly thereafter, Ream heard a car being driven away from the house, and saw the car’s brake lights in the darkness. Approximately fifteen minutes later, he heard a single gunshot.

Ream heard nothing more that night and departed for work early in the morning. After returning home in the evening, on July 15, 1982, he overheard a meeting of appellant, Slote, and Weisman. They were saying, “Just keep your mouth shut. Keep a cool head.” Slote asked appellant for “double payment” for being the “trigger man,” and then Slote and appellant went to another room to discuss the matter. Appellant told Ream to keep his “mouth shut.”

Approximately two days later, Ream listened to another conversation between appellant and Slote. Randy Haag gave Slote two ounces of cocaine and said, “I’ll pay you the rest *397 later.” Many months later, while police were investigating Good’s death, appellant told Ream he would like to have the Pennsylvania State Police barracks blown up. Appellant also named four state police officers who were involved in the investigation of Good’s death, and said he would “like to have them found in the river, too.” In addition, appellant said it was Weisman’s fault that Good’s body had been discovered, and that he, i.e., appellant, was only supposed to have handled the “financial end.”

A cashier from the Leinbach Hardware Store testified that late in the summer of 1982 he was asked by Weisman to destroy a copy of a charge slip, dated July 13, 1982, which reflected Weisman’s purchase of rope, chain, a connecting link, and a padlock. The cashier did not, however, destroy the charge slip. The items purchased were just like those found wrapped around Good’s body when it was recovered from the river. Also, a former automobile dealer testified that he sold his dealership to appellant approximately one year prior to Good’s death, and that the dealership office had been carpeted in a tricolored carpet exactly like the one in which Good’s body was found.

Scientific evidence was adduced at trial, too, including the results of an autopsy performed on Good’s body on July 20, 1982 by a forensic pathologist, Dr. Mihalikis, who concluded that the cause of death was a shotgun blast to the head. Dr. Mihalikis stated that death likely occurred five days, plus or minus one day, prior to the autopsy. This would place the date of death between July 14 and July 16, 1982. Notably, Ream testified that Slote owned a shotgun around that time, but that he had not seen the gun after July 14, 1982. A police search of Slote’s bedroom uncovered two shotgun shells, loaded with no. 2 size lead pellets. The pellets recovered from Good’s skull during the autopsy were of size no. 2.

Evidence of the time of death was also furnished through the testimony of a forensic toxicologist who examined stomach contents removed during the autopsy. The contents included beef fibers, leafy vegetable matter, and processed *398 wheat grain. The toxicologist testified that these substances could have been the remains of prepared lunch meat, lettuce, and bread. He also gave his opinion that the food had been consumed three to six hours before death. This is significant because Miss Good testified that she fixed her father a sandwich of bologna, cheese, lettuce, and bread at 8:30 p.m. on July 14, 1982, just two and one-half hours prior to his departure to visit Slote.

Upon consideration of the foregoing evidence, we hold that appellant’s guilt was plainly established beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant has characterized the Commonwealth’s evidence as contradictory and “all over the park.” Such a characterization is patently without basis. Our examination of the testimony, as heretofore recounted, discloses remarkable consistency in its content. The testimony of numerous witnesses, as well as the physical evidence introduced, all supported the jury’s determination that appellant participated in the kidnapping and murder of Good on July 14, 1982

https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/1989/522-pa-388-1.html

Ralph Birdsong Pennsylvania Death Row

Ralph Birdsong was sentenced to death by the State of Pennsylvania for the murders of two people. According to court documents Ralph Birdsong would shoot and kill two people and injure six more people during a drug related shooting inside of a Philadelphia home. Ralph Birdsong would flee to Florida however he was arrested two months later, convicted and sentenced to death

Ralph Birdsong 2021 Information

Parole Number: 6412M
Age: 60
Date of Birth: 01/29/1961
Race/Ethnicity: BLACK
Height: 5′ 11″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: LIGHT
Current Location: PHOENIX

Permanent Location: PHOENIX
Committing County: PHILADELPHIA

Ralph Birdson More News

To the neighbors in the Davie trailer park where he lived, he was Edward Edmond, a standoffish man who paid his rent on time and kept to himself.

To CFT Construction, where he earned $8.50 an hour, he was Kenneth Cooper, a carpenter.

But to the FBI, he was Ralph Edward Birdsong, accused of killing two people and wounding six others in a drug-related Philadelphia shooting rampage.

Birdsong, who lived in Broward County for two months before he was arrested by the FBI, was ordered held without bail by a U.S. magistrate in Fort Lauderdale on Wednesday. Magistrate Lurana Snow said that Birdsong should be turned over to state authorities, then extradited to Philadelphia to face charges.

Birdsong, 29, who was taken to federal court in shackles, wore gray sweat pants, work boots and a red shirt at the brief hearing.

He was arrested by the FBI on Monday, shortly after he returned from his job at CFT Construction. Birdsong said in court that he used a driver’s license- type card from Georgia as identification when he applied for the job.

CFT Construction officials could not be located for comment.

The arrest of Birdsong and his girlfriend, Jill St. Clair, 24, stunned Twin Lakes Travel Park residents, who said the two maintained a low profile and appeared to be just another young couple. They lived in a 1976 Winnebago at the park, and neighbors said both went to work daily.

Trailer park residents knew St. Clair as Mary Ann Edmond.

“They just came off the street,” the manager of the trailer park said. “When they first got here, they stayed one day, then left and went to the Keys, and then they came back and said they decided they wanted to stay on. He wasn’t mean looking or anything.

“They paid their $322 rent on time each month, and they were never, never a problem. He would come into the office every day to check his mail and pick up some milk or beer,” said the manager, who requested her name be withheld.

On Tuesday, St. Clair, who fled drug charges in Philadelphia, also was ordered held without bail by a federal magistrate. She was to be turned over to Pennsylvania authorities.

Irene Block, who lived next door to St. Clair and Birdsong, described the couple as “anti-social.”

“I said good morning to him twice. That was it,” Block said. “They never even came out for a cup of coffee.”

Birdsong is charged with killing the two people and attempting to kill another six in a Philadelphia house on July 17. Of the six people who survived the shooting spree, four were shot, one was severly beaten and another was beaten and raped, Philadelphia police said.

The shooting spree began, they said, when people in the house were freebasing cocaine and started a fire. The house was damaged and nine pounds of cocaine were destroyed.

“It’s the theory of the Philadelphia Police Department that this was (Birdsong’s) revenge” for the fire, FBI Agent Robert Risner testified in court.

In court testimony, Birdsong said he has four children and that he fully owns one house and several duplexes in Philadelphia. A federal public defender was appointed to represent him, however, because he said he has only about $200 in the bank.

Philadelphia police said authorities there have confiscated numerous cars and real estate from Birdsong.

The manager of Twin Lakes Travel Park said she suspected nothing when the two came to live there, but in the future will be more cautious.

“You can’t very well ask someone if they are wanted,” she said

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1988-11-17-8803070123-story.html

Jordan Wallick Teen Killer Murders Law Student

Jordan Wallick was fifteen years old when he murdered a law student during a robbery. According to court documents Jordan Wallick would shoot and kill James Wallmuth III who was talking on his phone outside of a Philadelphia restaurant. Jordan Wallick would be arrested, convicted and sentenced to life without parole. This teen killer would be later re sentenced to thirty years to life

Jordan Wallick 2023 Information

Name	Name Type
JORDAN MICHAEL WALLICK	Commit Name

Parole Number: 274HY
Age: 26
Date of Birth: 01/20/1995
Race/Ethnicity: BLACK
Height: 5′ 05″
Gender: MALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: MEDIUM
Current Location: PINE GROVE

Permanent Location: PINE GROVE
Committing County: YORK

Jordan Wallick More News

Jordan Wallick no longer faces the distinct likelihood of dying in a Pennsylvania state prison.

Sentenced to life without parole in 2012 for the murder of law student James Wallmuth III, Wallick was re-sentenced on Friday in York County Common Pleas Court to 30 years to life in prison.

His resentencing was the result of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that life in prison without parole for juvenile killers was a violation of their 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Wallick was 15 when he shot and killed Wallmuth, 28, on July 28, 2010, outside a West Philadelphia Street restaurant as Wallmuth was talking on a cellphone. Police called the killing “a botched robbery.”

Wallick was convicted of second-degree murder in 2012 and sentenced to the only available legal penalty at the time — life in prison without parole.

Teen killer: ‘If I could trade my life for his, I would’

Wallick’s attorney, Suzanne Smith, said Wallick no longer faces what amounted to a prison death sentence. Now 21, he could come up for parole in 2040, Smith said.

At Friday’s re-sentencing hearing before Judge Michael E. Bortner, Wallick was given credit for the six years and two months he spent in prison following his arrest and conviction.

Wallick is the first so-called “juvenile lifer” to be re-sentenced in York County in accordance with the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Members of the Wallmuth family, who were in attendance at Friday’s hearing, declined to comment.

Under the revamped sentencing guidelines for juvenile murders, second-degree murder — murder during the commission of another crime — carries a minimum penalty of 30 years to life in prison for a defendant who was between 15 and 17 years old at the time of the murder.

Bortner noted that under federal and state law, he was compelled to examine 23 points in determining a sentence for a juvenile killer.

Those points include: the age of the defendant at the time of the crime; the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation; the impact of the crime on the victim and the victim’s family; any prior criminal history; and the defendant’s level of maturity.

Before passing the new sentence, Bortner said the court-ordered pre-trial investigation into Wallick’s background “certainly paints a picture of a young man who has not had an easy time in life

That is not an excuse for the crime that was committed,” the judge added.

Bortner said Wallick’s “gang involvement” as a possible motivation for the attempted robbery of Wallmuth, “is not entirely clear.”

Bortner also took note that Wallick’s prison record, following his arrest and incarceration while awaiting trial and after sentencing, was marked with incidents of disobedience and violence.

“Then, one and a half years ago, something changed, and he decided he was going to take a different course,” Bortner said.

The judge said that Wallick has since become a certified peer support specialist who helps other inmates and also is participating in a program where inmates train service dogs.

Bortner said he imposed life as the maximum end of the sentence “because we feel we don’t know where Jordan is heading at this time. There have been some glimpses of a change in behavior. He has expressed remorse.

But, we don’t know where that is going; we don’t know where that is taking Jordan.”

Bortner recalled that when Wallick was sentenced following his conviction in 2012, no family members or friends were present to speak on his behalf.

“That speaks volumes,” Bortner said.

At Friday’s hearing, Wallick’s father, who has been paralyzed since before Wallick’s birth, and others sat behind him in the gallery.

At a hearing in August where the prosecution and defense offered their arguments for re-sentencing — the prosecution sought 40 to life and the defense asked for 30 to 60 years — Wallick read an apology letter to the Wallmuth family.

On Friday, Bortner said, “I’ve looked at that letter numerous times. I hope I can believe it.”

To the Wallmuth family, Bortner said, “I wish I could say something to the family that would ease the pain.”

He said that, from statements made at the August hearing, he knows the family has positive memories of Wallmuth. He also noted that Wallmuth’s law school class had included him in the graduation.

According to statements from Wallmuth’s friends at a vigil, he had been interning with a local attorney, John Hamme, had previously worked in the District Attorney’s office as a case manager, and had talked about running for mayor

A University of Pittsburgh law student and classmate, Brian Rambin, also had said that Wallmuth was an impressive student who was “completely unfazed” by the stresses of law school.

“God, he was bright,” Rambin said. “He was a guy who could talk to you about anything, and do it competently.”

Wallmuth graduated with degrees in history and English from Penn State in 2004 and then earned a paralegal certificate, leading to his employment in the DA’s office.

At the end of Friday’s hearing, Wallick asked to be returned to state prison as quickly as possible. Smith said that was because Wallick is hoping to get a puppy to train for the service dog program.

https://www.ydr.com/story/news/crime/2016/09/23/juvenile-lifer-re-sentenced-killing-law-student/90518260/

Jordan Wallick FAQ

Jordan Wallick Now

Jordan Wallick is currently incarcerated at the Pine Grove Correctional Facility

Jordan Wallick Release Date

Jordan Wallick is serving a life sentence however is eligible for parole in 2040

Jessica Holtmeyer Teen Killer Brutally Murders Classmate

Jessica Holtmeyer was a sixteen year old from Pennsylvania who would brutally murder a classmate. According to court documents Jessica Holtmeyer. Kimberly Dotts, 15, and a group of other teens were performing an odd ritual in which each member would put a noose around their necks. However when Kimberly Dotts would put the noose around her neck she would be brutally attacked by Jessica Holtmeyer who repeatedly struck her with a rock causing her death. Jessica Holtmeyer would be sentenced to life in prison without parole however it would be changed to life in prison with a chance of parole after 36 years. The teen killer appealed her sentenced however nothing changed.

Jessica Holtmeyer 2023 Information

Name	Name Type
JESSICA N HOLTMEYER	Commit Name
JESSICA NICHOLE HOLTMEYER	True Name

Parole Number: 278HY
Age: 39
Date of Birth: 03/01/1982
Race/Ethnicity: WHITE
Height: 5′ 09″
Gender: FEMALE
Citizenship: USA
Complexion: LIGHT
Current Location: MUNCY

Permanent Location: MUNCY
Committing County: CLEARFIELD

Jessica Holtmeyer More News

The 2018 sentence of a former Clearfield County woman to a prison term of 35 years to life for a murder she committed as a minor was affirmed Monday by the Pennsylvania Superior Court

The state appeals court rejected a request by Jessica Nicole Holtmeyer, now 38, to grant her a resentencing hearing, because, she claimed, the sentence was essentially life without parole, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on 2012 was, for a minor, a violation of the Eighth Amendment barring “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Superior Court Judge Megan King wrote in a 23-page opinion that the sentence imposed by Senior Judge Daniel L. Howsare does not constitute a de facto life without parole sentence.

“The court resentenced (Holtmeyer) to 35 years to life imprisonment for first-degree murder. (She) has been incarcerated since she was 16 years old and will be eligible for parole when she is 51 years old,” the opinion stated.

Judges Deborah A. Kunselman and James G. Colins, joined the opinion.

Holtmeyer has been incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Muncy after initially being sentenced in 1999 to life without parole for the murder of Kimberly Dotts, 15, who along with Holtmeyer, was a member of a group of teens calling themselves “The Runaways.”

The name came about because the six teens, ages 14 to 18, had decided in May 1999 to leave Clearfield County and travel to Florida.

Both Holtmeyer and Dotts were part of the group that decided to hold a “bizarre” initiation rite in which they forged a noose using rope stolen from a cabin and, after throwing it over a tree limb, each teen took a turn at placing the noose around his or her neck.

Things turned ugly when Dotts placed the noose around her neck.

Holtmeyer, who alleged Dotts was a “snitch,” and her boyfriend, Aaron Straw, 18, would not let Dotts remove the noose.

Instead they pulled it until Dotts was on her tiptoes and in tears.

They momentarily relented allowing Dotts to remove the rope due to the sound of an approaching vehicle.

After the vehicle passed, the victim again placed her head in the noose and it was once again pulled tight until she passed out and stopped breathing.

Her body dropped to the ground, at which point the victim began to revive.

Holtmeyer then used a rock to kill Dotts, striking her twice in the face.

On March 24, 1999, Holtmeyer was sentenced to life without parole, a mandatory sentence in Pennsylvania for first-degree murder.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama, and a subsequent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling, did not rule out a life without parole sentence for first-degree murder, but it limited the sentence to individuals who are considered “permanently incorrigible, irreparably corrupt or irretrievably depraved.”

According to the Superior Court, the law now states, “there is a presumption against sentencing a juvenile to life without parole, which the Commonwealth can rebut if it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile is incapable of rehabilitation.”

Jessica Holtmeyer requested a resentencing hearing, which was granted.

The Commonwealth agreed with the defense that Holtmeyer was capable of being rehabilitated, and testimony taken during the resentencing process indicated she has taken steps toward rehabilitation during her years behind bars.

A reentry service coordinator from Muncy pointed out that Holtmeyer worked as a reentry support specialist who helped other inmates to prepare for life after prison.

She furthered her education and was employed in the prison. She was involved in a program titled House of Hope.

Other experts testified Holtmeyer was well prepared for reentry, including a psychologist who explained that at the time of the murder, Holtmeyer suffered from a condition called “automatic obedience” due to “extreme traumatization” at the hands of her boyfriend.

The psychologist contended that Holtmeyer “has been rehabilitated.”

The defense argued that Howsare had placed too much weight on the seriousness of the incident, and a 20-year-old victim statement from the Dotts’ family, and not enough attention to Holtmeyer’s rehabilitation efforts.

Judge Howsare replied that he did consider the seriousness of the crime, pointing out, “One could only imagine the horror this 15-year-old girl experienced before she died.”

The Superior Court concluded, “nothing in the record indicates the resentencing court placed undue weight on the gravity of the offenses.”

Holtmeyer’s former boyfriend, Straw, is incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Dallas.

Holtmeyer’s attorney, Patrick Lavelle of DuBois, could not be reached for comment.

https://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2020/09/court-affirms-prison-term/

Jessica Holtmeyer Videos

Jessica Holtmeyer FAQ

Jessica Holtmeyer Now

Jessica Holtmeyer is currently incarcerated at the Muncy Correctional Institute

Jessica Holtmeyer Release Date

Jessica Holtmeyer is serving a life sentence however can apply for parole when she is 51 years old