I watched this one last night. I was thinking of doing a write up (and may if there is interest) but I'm feeling lazy at the moment. I'm sure most of the posters here are familiar with the case, even though it is not discussed very often (or at all).

Do you think he killed his wife?

If not, did he pay someone to kill her?

^ I haven't seen this segment in awhile, but from what I remember I think he did a pretty good job of convincing me that he was innocent. Take that for what its worth.

I got a request to put this case on the net but I don't have it in my collection.

I remember this case quite well but like DarkDante, I haven't seen it in a couple years. A tragic ending for the guy where I believe he was finally found innocent AFTER he had died of his brain tumor in jail.

From what I can remember, the time table of him leaving his office, picking up his son from school and arriving home with him to find his wife dead on the kitchen floor made it impossible for him to have pulled it off given the distance of driving he would have had to do as well as the timing of the gun shot the next door neighbors heard. Yet, he was still found guilty.

I might be mistaken, but I think his "guilty" conviction was also compliments of racism since all of the jurrors were white and he was black. I believe this murder took place in the very late 60's or early 70's when racial tensions were much higher than they are now.

I got a request to put this case on the net but I don't have it in my collection.

I remember this case quite well but like DarkDante, I haven't seen it in a couple years. A tragic ending for the guy where I believe he was finally found innocent AFTER he had died of his brain tumor in jail.

From what I can remember, the time table of him leaving his office, picking up his son from school and arriving home with him to find his wife dead on the kitchen floor made it impossible for him to have pulled it off given the distance of driving he would have had to do as well as the timing of the gun shot the next door neighbors heard. Yet, he was still found guilty.

I might be mistaken, but I think his "guilty" conviction was also compliments of racism since all of the jurrors were white and he was black. I believe this murder took place in the very late 60's or early 70's when racial tensions were much higher than they are now.

He was never exonerated officially. The governor commuted Branion's sentence to "time served" due to his failing health. He was released to a hospital where he died from a brain tumor.

Dr. Branion's trial began in a Chicago courtroom in May of 1968 - a month after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Racial tensions were at an all time high. There was only one black juror on the panel.

While I think Branion could be innocent of this crime, I find it odd that exactly four shell casings were missing from a box of bullets found in his closet. He was also caught in a lie about his ownership of a specific type of firearm that could fire the 9mm ammo.

It was suggested in the segment that Branion could have hired someone to kill his wife, thus making the whole time table theory irrelevant. Unfortunately, this possibility was not explored more in depth in the segment. It would be interesting to know if the cops checked his bank accounts for a massive withdrawal around the time of his wife's death, although I doubt it would be a clincher.

Also, the failing health issue, and not being able to get the needed heart transplant unless he was cleared on the charges. Seems like a good time to drum up a "final appeal" to get the public behind you in hopes of prolonging your life as much as possible.

Just some things to think about...

I dont know, the man was a doctor I think he would be smarter than that but that is just my opinion. It could just be a coincidence that the 4 shells were missing. I dont know, I mean I dont think the final appeal really has anything to do with his ill health, at least I dont think that was the only reason he did it anyway. Remember, UM thoroughly investigated these cases before doing the final appeal segments so they must have thought it was a good one to do, I imagine they had thousands of requests.

^ I haven't seen this segment in awhile, but from what I remember I think he did a pretty good job of convincing me that he was innocent. Take that for what its worth.

Yeh me too, I haven't seen this one in awhile. My initial thought was he was innocent but I'll put it on my re-cap list.

I just saw this case on the Mystery Channel here in Canada last night and while I don't believe that Branion himself killed his wife, I do suspect that he hired someone or some people to do so. IIRC, there was nothing missing from the house which would rule out a burglary and I don't recall anything being mentioned about the victim being sexually assaulted so what would be the motivation for anyone else wanting to kill her unless they were being paid to do so?

He was never exonerated officially. The governor commuted Branion's sentence to "time served" due to his failing health. He was released to a hospital where he died from a brain tumor.

Dr. Branion's trial began in a Chicago courtroom in May of 1968 - a month after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Racial tensions were at an all time high. There was only one black juror on the panel.

While I think Branion could be innocent of this crime, I find it odd that exactly four shell casings were missing from a box of bullets found in his closet. He was also caught in a lie about his ownership of a specific type of firearm that could fire the 9mm ammo.

It was suggested in the segment that Branion could have hired someone to kill his wife, thus making the whole time table theory irrelevant. Unfortunately, this possibility was not explored more in depth in the segment. It would be interesting to know if the cops checked his bank accounts for a massive withdrawal around the time of his wife's death, although I doubt it would be a clincher.

Also, the failing health issue, and not being able to get the needed heart transplant unless he was cleared on the charges. Seems like a good time to drum up a "final appeal" to get the public behind you in hopes of prolonging your life as much as possible.

Just some things to think about...

I don't believe Branion killed his wife, although I wouldn't rule out hiring someone to do it. Interestingly, he seems much more upset at being accused of hiring someone than being accused of doing the crime himself.

but the timetable makes me believe it would be virtually impossible for him to have committed the crime himself.

Regarding the 4 bullets missing/his uncertainy of a ownership of a certain gun, I don't necessarily believe that makes him suspicious. It was believed that the people who murdered his wife spent at least a half an hour in the apartment, so they could have had time to search around and find the gun. Plus, while it would seem that the perpetrators would have brought the weapon with them, it appears that they tried to strangle her first, and when that didn't work, they shot her. so I don't think they initially intended to use a gun, but found one anyway and used it.

I don't find his failing health and that it coincides with the timing of the segment suspcious. I think he figured he might die soon, and if he got cleared, he might get the heart transplat, and the guy naturally is going to do everything he can to save himself.

When I started watching it I thought he came across as a truthful person, however as it progressed he came across poorly- he talks about having a lengthy affair as if was something that was to be expected and not a problem and should not be addressed as a motive. I guess he abandoned his young son instead running away to Africa where he rekindled his prior hanging out with vermin as he had sone with the Panthers by cosying up to the Genocidal Dictator Idi Amin. The woman at the school said his timeline on picking his son up was quite a way off as well.

When I started watching it I thought he came across as a truthful person, however as it progressed he came across poorly- he talks about having a lengthy affair as if was something that was to be expected and not a problem and should not be addressed as a motive. I guess he abandoned his young son instead running away to Africa where he rekindled his prior hanging out with vermin as he had sone with the Panthers by cosying up to the Genocidal Dictator Idi Amin. The woman at the school said his timeline on picking his son up was quite a way off as well.

From all accounts that I've heard that the woman at the school verified Dr. Branion's accounts.

I agree that he does come off bad on a couple instances, such as the affair.

The police said they could do this in six minutes. If they can, I'd like to see it. Actually, even in desirable conditions they couldn't have done it: Dr Branion had the added time delays of snow and traffic: next to last shopping day before Christmas.

Some of this I found online and it wasn't mentioned in the segment. I might post more later and possibly post a link to the article.

Here is a nice piece on it

At 11:30 A.M. on December 22, 1967, Dr. John Branion set off in his car from the Ida Mae Scott Hospital on Chicago's South Side. Five minutes later—after passing his home—he picked up his 4-year-old son from outside a nursery school, then called on a Maxine Brown, who was to have lunch with Branion and his wife. When Brown explained that she was unable to keep the engagement, Branion drove to his apartment at 5054 S. Woodlawn Avenue. His story was that he had arrived at 11:57 A.M. and found his wife Donna lying on the floor of the utility room. She had been shot four times by a. 38-caliber automatic pistol. Branion immediately summoned help.

Police treated Branion's story with palpable disdain; already witnesses were coming forward to dispute his version of events. Another factor was Branion's unpalatable detachment. Just two days after his wife's murder he flew to Vail, Colorado, for a Christmas break.

One month later, armed with a search warrant, police recovered two boxes of Geco brand. 38-caliber ammunition from a closet in Branion's apartment. One full box contained 25 shells. The other box had 4 shells missing, the same number that had killed Donna Branion. Shortly afterwards Branion was arrested for murder.

According to prosecutor Patrick Tuite, the story that Branion had told police was correct in every respect save one: chronology. Yes, Tuite said, Branion had gone to pick up his son, then on to Maxine Brown's, but first he had sneaked home and shot his wife, before hastening to establish an alibi. This theory was borne out by Joyce Kelly, a teacher at the nursery school. She testified that Branion had entered the school between 11:45 A.M. and 11:50 A.M., some 10 minutes later than he had claimed. Furthermore, she said that Branion's young son was waiting inside the school, again contradicting the defendant's story.

Detective Michael Boyle described for the court a series of tests that he and another officer had performed, driving the route allegedly taken by Branion. They had covered the 2.8-mile journey in a minimum of six minutes and a maximum of 12 minutes. Time enough, said the prosecution, for Branion to have committed the murder and then gone to pick up his son. Oddly enough, this assertion was never seriously challenged by the defense.

A ballistics expert, Officer Burt Nielsen, stated that the bullets which had killed Donna Branion could only have been fired from a Walther PPK. 38-caliber automatic pistol, a very rare make. The prosecution pointed out that Branion, an avid gun collector, had at first denied ever having owned a Walther, until it was shown that he had received just such a gun in February 1967 as a belated birthday present. This had prompted Branion to change his original statement in which he claimed that nothing was stolen from his apartment; now he said that the Walther must have been taken by the intruders who killed his wife. The murder weapon was never found.

Much was made of Branion's peculiar indifference toward the discovery of his wife's body. He admitted not bothering to examine it because he could tell from the lividity that she was dead. (Lividity is the tendency of blood to sink to the lowest extremities in a corpse.) But Dr. Helen Payne testified that when she examined the body at 12:20 P.M. lividity was not present. Branion again altered his story, saying that he had really meant 'cyanosis,' a blue discoloration of the skin caused by dc-oxygenated blood.

To establish motive, the state argued that Branion was conducting an affair with nurse Shirley Hudson and wanted to be rid of his wife. Questioning of Maxine Brown, who had allegedly overheard a compromising conversation between Hudson and Branion one day after the murder, produced the following, seemingly fruitless, exchange:

Prosecutor: Who is Shirley Hudson?

Defense Counsel: Objection.

The Court: Sustained.

Prosecutor: Do you know what, if any, relationship Shirley Hudson bore to the defendant?

Defense Counsel: Objection.

The Court: Sustained.

And so it went: an endless string of improper questions, countered by an equal number of objections, all of which were upheld by the court. But the damage was immense. By such tactics the prosecution was able to establish the likelihood of an illicit relationship, if not the certainty.

Declining to testify on his own behalf, Branion remained mute while the jury convicted him of murder and Judge Reginald Holzer passed sentence of 20-30 years imprisonment. Defense counsel Maurice Scott immediately argued that the trial had been prejudiced by Chicago's recent racial disturbances and vowed to appeal.

Released by Judge Holzer on an unusually low bond of $5,000, Branion took his case to the Illinois Supreme Court. On December 3, 1970, while conceding that the evidence against Branion was wholly circumstantial, the court held that it was sufficient to uphold the guilty verdict, stating:

To support a conviction based on circumstantial evidence it is essential that facts proved be not only consistent with defendant's guilt, but they must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence; but the People are not required to establish guilt beyond any possible doubt.

In 1971, Branion, sensing that the end was nigh, fled the country. After an amazing jaunt across Africa he found asylum in Uganda, occasionally acting as personal physician to Idi Amin, that country's dictator. Upon Amin's ouster, Branion was arrested and returned to the United States in October 1983.

Yet another stunning twist came in 1986, when Judge Reginald Holzer received an 18-year jail sentence for extortion and racketeering. Branion's lawyers seized this opportunity to charge that Holzer had received a $10,000 bribe during the 1968 trial, paid by the defendant's brother-in-law, Nelson Brown. Prosecutor Patrick Tuite admitted that he had heard rumors of Holzer's intention to overturn Branion's conviction and had gone to see him, urging that the law be allowed to take its course. The speculation is that Holzer, unnerved by Tuite's visit, swindled those who allegedly paid the bribe, then sought to placate them by substituting a ludicrously low bail of $5,000, allowing Branion to escape. Because there was no way of corroborating the story—Brown had himself been stabbed to death in 1983—this final effort to overturn Branion's conviction met with the same fate as its predecessors.

After serving just seven years of his sentence, Branion was released from prison in August 1990 on health grounds. One month later, at age 64, he died of a brain tumor and heart ailment.

Branion's conviction stunned Chicago's black community. Initial outrage over a perceived lack of police effort in apprehending the killer quickly turned to fury when the verdict of the jury was announced.

I think he was definitely a sleaze for carrying on an affair while married but I don't think he killed his wife. Also the segment on the volume is from the NBC version. I believe on the Lifetime version they update it further and say that in addition to needing a heart transplant he was discovered to have a brain tumor. He was granted a release I believe based on his poor health but by then wasn't able to cognitively realize he was free and died soon after. Just to fill anyone in that might not know that.

Detective Michael Boyle described for the court a series of tests that he and another officer had performed, driving the route allegedly taken by Branion. They had covered the 2.8-mile journey in a minimum of six minutes and a maximum of 12 minutes. Time enough, said the prosecution, for Branion to have committed the murder and then gone to pick up his son. Oddly enough, this assertion was never seriously challenged by the defense.


The people in the segment that drove it did so several times with the earliest being 11 minutes, if I remember correctly. Also, as I stated above, Branion met with snow and very heavy traffic that day, which the police did not account for in their time estimate. In addition, they said it took Branion one minute to pick his son up from school, but the school teacher says he was in there for 5 minutes, which is also what Branion stated.

I felt bad for Dr. John as the guilty verdict was read. it looked like he had been shot through the heart, at least that's what the actor portrayed.

I wonder what section of Chicago this happened in. Southside is known to have some of the worst crime in the country.

Justin is right, this case (to my surprise) hasn't been discussed much.

there are a few final appeals segments i have yet to see, but I can't think of a single one that i'm 100% that the accused was guilty. each one has at least some credible evidence to suggest their innocent. not saying for sure all of the final appelants are for sure innocent, but they at least have a strong case.

I cannot say I did- he had the chance to put his side across and chose not to, his team totally fudged the issue of an affair to where it made them look like they were hiding things, a man who finds his wife in that state who is also a doctor but does not even bother to check for vital signs as anybody finding a loved one would automatically do and not even getting the reason as to why he did not bother correct, lying about not having that make of gun, the differing times & circumstances between his version of picking his son up and the teachers version of events, it was no wonder he was found guilty.

This is def. a fascinating case. I went into this case thinking that I would be convinced he was railroaded, and ended feeling that he probably did it. There are several issues, between the segment and the article above, that just don't make sense:
1) 4 bullets missing from his ammunition box (unless there are grounds to believe the cops stole them to frame him)
2) Him lying about not having a specific type of gun; the specific type which just happened to be the one used in the shooting. hmm...
3) Refusal to take a polygraph test
4) Not checking the body at all even though he's a doctor
5) Apparently going on vacation a week after the murder (although that could be to get away from the stress)
6) The 6 year affair

The timeline is a bit iffy: I do feel that he could have committed the murder because, remember, when we talk about timelines, we are basing it on people's recollection of when someone left somewhere and arrived somewhere else. A few minutes here or there can be added or subtracted from the timeline; therefore, the "10 minute" time between leaving the clinic and getting his son could have been give or take. Plus, if he was trying to create an alibi, he knew he had to get in there fast, shoot, and leave immediately.

I don't know; I am surprised that he was convicted, because the evidence is circumstantial and there is absolutely reasonable doubt. Then again, we don't know exactly how it was presented, and I can totally see the Dr. coming off as arrogant in the court room with his body language.

Finally, I have NO sympathy whatsoever for this man, regardless of whether he killed his wife or not. For him to be the personal doctor to Idi Amin means he helped a man who is responsible for the killing of thousands upon thousands of people, never mind the torture of thousands more. That alone makes me dislike him.

Hmm, Matt, I will disagree with you here. I am not sure whether Branion was behind the killing of his wife but I think the timeline showed he could not have been the one that physically killed his wife. Whether or not he was behind it is a different question. But Branion did not actually lie about having the type of weapon. It was stolen and he did not realize it was stolen until after the fact. That is not a lie.

The fact he refused to take a polygraph also does not demonstrate guilt. I would not take one either, especially if the police were the one's administering it. But the polygraph's accuracy rates are so low that they are not even allowed into court as evidence in most states unless both parties agree to have it admitted.

In terms of the body, there was nothing to check. It was very obvious that she was dead. Also the affair, it was a 6 year affair, that is not a motive for an affair. People act like this was some hot on the burner thing or that his mistress threatened to leave him if he did not leave his wife when neither thing happened. Plus his mistress was aware he had a wife and his wife was aware he had a mistress.

Hi Everyone,
I have access to the Chicago Defender archives (a newspaper geared toward Chicago's African American population, founded about 1905) through my university library database, and I thought to share a few articles that i found on Branion here, both before and after the murder. It is quite interesting. he was quite influential in Chicago's black community (which UM alludes to), and his wife Donna was a socialite. Her father Sidney Brown was described as a "prominent Chicago attorney." Her brother was also an attorney. Ironically, Dr. Branion's father, John Branion Sr, was a defense attorney. I also found "Confetti" articles on which Mrs. John Branion is listed. "Confetti" was like a gossip column that detailed the parties, social events, etc. in the black chicago community, including a "who's who" on the guest list.

Unfortunately I can't copy and paste links to this site, since I this is through my school library, but I copy the text verbatim. I hope they can be of use.

This article appeared 3 years before the murder, and includes a photograph of Branion and 3 other influential hospital members
"Launch Spiritual-Medical Program"
Dec. 19, 1964

Everybody's Church and Ida May Scott Hospital under the direction of their founder and pastor Dr. James M Scott joined forces this holiday season in an attempt to create a spiritual and medical bridge to the Welfare Recipients Treated at the Hospital. They will present Christmas baskets to those patients who are physically disabled beyond the rehabilitation limits established by the church and hospital social welfare staff. Looking over the plans for the new program which will expand into other community work during the year are (left to right) Dr. John Branion, gynecologist, new medical director of Ida Mae Scott Hospital; Deacons A. Moore and Harry Mithcell of the church's trustee board and Dr. Scott

This is the title of another article: "Dad Demands Police Catch Branion Killer" which appeared shortly after New Year's 1968, and was reported with glaring headlines. I am paraphrasing it, as it was 3 pages and would be too long for me to transcribe at this moment. But basically Donna's father is urging for the killers to be found; the murder is described as a "pitiless crime." Donna was shot 12 times in the head and neck. At the time, Dr. Branion, his 2 children and Donna's brother had just returned from a vacation in Vail, CO. The police also "discarded" the theory that Donna was killed by a stranger, as no valuables were taken. There was also an investigation into Donna's character, and even the suspicion that she could have been killed by a woman. BTW, what do you think about this last theory? The UM re-enactment seemed to assume that the killers were male.

Here also is an interesting observation. when I googled "Dr. John Branion" (in quotes) into my university search engine,i came up with about 40 hits. There were a few articles from before the murder, such as the hospital Christmas article. however, most were in about the murder in trial.
HOWEVER, when I googled "John branion" by itself, I come up with interesting hits about John branion SENIOR, including his court cases. There was one from May 1961 where the father of an 11 year old was outraged when her 16 year old killer, Branion's client, was let go. He also defended a gang of teenager who were sentenced to life after a hold-up, in March 1959. I also found an article from 1936 where Branion Sr. defended a woman accused of killing an ex-lover who had left her. The EARLIEST article i found on the branion family is from 1932, a gossip piece about a Christmas party in which "mesdames John Branion, etc..." were in attendance (I assume this is Dr. Branion's mom)

Really interesting stuff. I never realized how much this murder galvanized the Chicago black community, nor how politically connected the Branion-Brown family was. Both before and after the murder, they were prominent names in the Defender. If i come across any more articles I will try to post them.

Correction: Regardin the new Year's 1968 article, when i say "at the time," I mean that the Branion family returned from Vail at the time of the article's publication.

Sorry, one last question I had. Does anyone know if Dr. Branion's wife Shirley has passed away? I was curious, and I looked up the name "Branion" on familysearch.org, trying to find if there was a record of Dr. Branion's date of death. And I found a record of a Shirley Branion, born January 6, 1940 and died February 2001.

I wonder what section of Chicago this happened in. Southside is known to have some of the worst crime in the country.

I lived about a block and a half from Dr. Branion's former apartment (which I didn't realize until I saw the other post here). The apartment is in Hyde Park/Kenwood, which is (and was) a racially integrated, wealthy neighborhood, anchored by the University of Chicago. The President lives there, when he's not in the White House, at least.

Hyde Park is a fairly safe neighborhood, especially given that it's patrolled by both CPD and UofCPD (who unlike most University police are real cops).

I wasn't there in '68, but from what I know of the neighborhood's history, it had avoided most (but not all) of the blight and social problems associated with the 60s. Violent crime was and is rare there.

This was one of the most fascinating cases to me because there were so many avenues to go with the wife's murder. Plus, the doctor didn't come across as particularly sympathetic, especially when his long-time mistress surfaced. The whole thing with the affair and the racial tension and just nebulous facts made it one case I was never too sure about. Guess there's the possibility that racist police framed a guilty man...? Or not!

Still, I feel very sad for Dr. Branion's kids. Their mom was killed. Next, to have their dad on trial for her killing reads like some nightmare for elementary school-aged children....Just so sad for those babies.....:(

Hi Everyone,
Today I was surfing the web and Googled John Branion. I came up with this interesting link to a July 1984 article in Ebony magazine, and I am pasting the link here. I hope it comes up. it goes more in depth into Branion's life in Africa, and his associations with the famous and the infamous: Idi Amin, Stokely Carmichael, singer Miriam Makeba. The article even features photographs of Branion in Africa...he fled to many countries, including Algeria, the Sudan, Nigeria, and ghana. Supposedly he fled the United States by using the name and identity of a dead friend, Albert McCoo. I also think that Branion and Shirley had about 2 more children.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CcAR4NQM2ssC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Shirley+branion&source=bl&ots=Uxy-w9NEZk&sig=KS_xpuDXM_OAc_tb4ulo_6MNiXQ&hl=en&ei=2be6S-uKOo7ENd2vhY4H&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Shirley%20branion&f=false

I cannot say I did- he had the chance to put his side across and chose not to, his team totally fudged the issue of an affair to where it made them look like they were hiding things, a man who finds his wife in that state who is also a doctor but does not even bother to check for vital signs as anybody finding a loved one would automatically do and not even getting the reason as to why he did not bother correct, lying about not having that make of gun, the differing times & circumstances between his version of picking his son up and the teachers version of events, it was no wonder he was found guilty.

I agree with James here.

Just as an addition for the second thing James mentioned - on the segment, he was very elusive about the affair - like he was trying to at once admit to the affair and also make it seem like there was really no affair at all (ie. merely "plutonic"). Seemed very suspicious to me.

Nice to see this thread bumped.

One thing I never understood about this case - what was the prosecution's theory exactly?

Based on the re-enactments of Branion's trial and the fact that the defense tried to counter claims that he would have had enough time to commit the murder and pick up his son, one could assume that the state presented the theory that Branion himself acted alone and committed this murder.

However, on Unsolved Mysteries, the prosecutor says something like (paraphrasing) "we never were sure if he was the one who pulled the trigger". Huh? If that was the case, why didn't they go after Branion (presumed) accomplices and hang them all?

[1] There are several issues, between the segment and the article above, that just don't make sense:
1) 4 bullets missing from his ammunition box (unless there are grounds to believe the cops stole them to frame him)
2) Him lying about not having a specific type of gun; the specific type which just happened to be the one used in the shooting. hmm...
3) Refusal to take a polygraph test
4) Not checking the body at all even though he's a doctor
5) Apparently going on vacation a week after the murder (although that could be to get away from the stress)
6) The 6 year affair

[2] The timeline is a bit iffy: I do feel that he could have committed the murder because, remember, when we talk about timelines, we are basing it on people's recollection of when someone left somewhere and arrived somewhere else. A few minutes here or there can be added or subtracted from the timeline; therefore, the "10 minute" time between leaving the clinic and getting his son could have been give or take. Plus, if he was trying to create an alibi, he knew he had to get in there fast, shoot, and leave immediately.

[3] Finally, I have NO sympathy whatsoever for this man, regardless of whether he killed his wife or not. For him to be the personal doctor to Idi Amin means he helped a man who is responsible for the killing of thousands upon thousands of people, never mind the torture of thousands more. That alone makes me dislike him.

Bingo, Bingo, and Bingo! Couldn't have said it better myself!

1. I would also add the way his eyes darted and shifted in the segment when he said he did not and could not have killed his wife.

2A. Everything matt said here, especially that last sentence. He had driven that stretch hundreds of times - he knew when the lights would change, how busy it was depending on the day, the hour, etc. He would have done everything possible to make sure he did things in as little time as possible, specifically because he was trying to give himself an alibi. His investigative team working on his appeal bought it - it's just the jury didn't.

2B. Another thing - the murder took place on Friday, December 22, three days before Christmas. How many people do you think booked time off to give themselves an extended Christmas break? Where I work, when Christmas falls on a Monday, the place is practically empty the Friday before. I bet there were hardly any cars on the road - and the cops were probably not patrolling the streets vigilantly for speeders.

2C. As for snow, I'm from Canada, and we can rip through it pretty fast.

3. mah79 also added that Branion hung out with these shady characters when he jumped bail and became a fugitive living in Africa. I hate to make him guilty by association, but if you hang with murderers and tyrants, it would not be a stretch to think you would be capable of killing the wife you are about to divorce.

Finally, one more question:

If Dr. Branion did not do it, what was the real killer's motive?

Dr. Branion is right about what he says in the segment - they suspected him because 85 percent of violent crimes are perpetuated by a family member or close friend. Out of the other 15 percent, they usually happen in dark alleys or in bad neighbourhoods.

In other words, I have a hard time believing it was someone other than Dr. Branion.

Wamisto, to cover most of your points.

2b) Chicago near Christmasttime is going to be PACKED. The stores are going to be PACKED.

2c) I'm from Michigan, and if you drive through the snow fast, you're going to lose control of your car and end off the road. Just a few months ago, there were terrible snow drifts on the road and I went off the road despite the fact I was driving very slowly. Everytime it snows here, it's not uncommon to see 6-7 cars off the road in a few mile span. I don't know if they were driving fast or slow, but they went off the road.

3). Perhaps I missed something, but hanging out with Idi Amin and being Idi Amin's doctor are two entirely different things. Doctors generally don't get to pick their patients, they treat pretty much anyone that comes through the door. If Idi Amin came to him, I don't know that Branion would have alot choice but to treat him. And he must be an exceptionally good doctor if he treated Martin Luther King Jr., so perhaps Idi Amin chose because of his skills. Now if he was friends with Idi Amin, that's something different.

And for your final point, I can't recall all of the details of the segment, but just because there isn't an apparent motive by intruders (if they did do this), doesn't mean one doesn't exist. And this is Chicago we're talking about. It's not exactly crime-free, so it's certainly plausible she was the victim of a random act of violence.

Good points Wiseguy, all of them. I will say, the timeline was iffy, for the state that is. They did not take into account that Branion had to go to the nursery school to pick up his son. By ALL accounts including the cops and prosecutors, Branion stopped at the school to pick up his son before returning home. Yet the cops in their recreated drive to see how long it would take drove straight from Branion's clinic to Branion's apartment without stopping at the school. That and being winter in Chicago, you would be out of your mind to speed as it would be very easy for you to spin out.

The cops took the fastest route from Branion's clinic to the apartment and did not go the route Branion took which was a slower route as he had to go to his son's nursery school. Then Branion had to get out of the car, go into the school, pick up his son, presumably at least greet the teacher, in fact the teacher reported talking to Branion for a couple of minutes while Branion dressed his son in the proper attire and prepared to take him home. So the cops timeline was skewed because they did not account for this in their timeline.

It seems to me, the state's theory was that Branion himself personally murdered his wife. I am frankly surprised they got a conviction on that theory. However the jury was probably instructed that they could convict Branion of murder even if they did not feel the evidence was sufficient to show that Branion was in the apartment at the time of the murder. However it does trouble me that if the state thought Branion had set this up, why not look for the so called accomplices and hang them along with Branion?

Chicago aka Cook County, Illinois is not exactly known for it's ethical practices in terms of law enforcement and prosecution. It is arguably the most corrupt county in the United States and has been for a long time. The trial also could not have happened at a worse time. 1968. The hotbed of racial tensions being at an all time high in Chicago. 11 whites and 1 black on the jury. My guess is the prosecution went out of their way to strike blacks from the panel because they were afraid they would be sympathetic to Branion. Striking members of a jury panel based on race was legal until the late 1980's. Even now it is not uncommon to see cases get overturned because prosecutors struck members of a jury panel and they had no real reason for doing so and it is obvious that the only reason they had was that they were members of a minority race since prosecutors feel that minorities tend to be more sympathetic to defendants especially if the defendant is of the same race.

What is also very troubling is that some folks evidently feel Branion deserved to be convicted because in their opinion he was not a good person. Of course the trial was years before Branion's days with Idi Amin but some folks feel because of that connection that Branion must have been guilty. Amin was driven out of power in Uganda in 1979. Branion was arrested in Uganda in 1983, 4 years after Amin and his regime were driven out.

Branion's sentence was commuted to time served by Governor James Thompson on August 7th, 1990. Branion had been transferred from state prison to the University of Illinois hospital in Chicago on July 3rd suffering from a brain tumor and heart ailment. So the state was paying for his medical care until the sentence was commuted to time served and Branion was discharged from custody and transferred to parole status. John Branion died in the hospital on September 8th, 1990, he was 64 years old.

Also, interestingly, Detective John Mannion, the lead investigator on Brannion's case, I found out some info on Mannion. Mannion served on the Chicago Police Department from 1961 to 1975. He was a patrol officer from 1961 to 1965, he was then a detective from 1965 to 1971 and was a patrol sergeant from 1971 to 1975. He went to school at night, earning his Bachelor's Degree in 1968 and his law degree in 1974. In 1975 he passed the Illinois State Bar, left the Chicago PD and went to work as a Cook County Assistant State's Attorney. He served as a prosecutor until 1985. Mannion was appointed a Cook County Circuit Court Judge in 1985. He worked on the bench until his retirement from the bench in 2006 upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70. Mannion had a high case overturn rate and was considered to be highly biased in favor of the state.

Also on December 22nd in Chicago? That place would be packed. Shopping in the United States is very different from shopping or driving in Canada I am sure.

Good points, guys. However, I still believe it is possible for him to have killed his wife, despite the traffic and snow conditions, for the reasons matt gave.

Well that may be but that is not enough to prove guilt. That is the point Wiseguy and I were trying to make.

Not enough to prove guilt is not equivalent to not having committed a crime.

I believe he killed his wife - that is the point I am trying to make. Whether or not there is enough evidence to prove that is certainly debatable.

Its always been hard to muster a lot of sympathy for this guy. Basically acted like it was ok to screw around on his wife, and when she was murdered he might as well have danced on her grave.

People who discount the affair as a motive just because she knew about it are naive in my opinion. Even wives who are tolerant of philandering husbands are still usually very hurt by it, and I am betting she was. For all we know she might have told him she'd had enough of it, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors of a marriage.

I think this guy had something of a sympathetic image because he was Martin Luther King's physician in a civil rights era where people tend to have a lot of empathy toward the black population. But if you look past all that he was just some big shot doctor with a selfish nature. Whether or not he was a murderer to I don't know. But as I said, its hard to be to sympathetic towards someone like that.

Yes I know that Wamisto. Did I say anything different? No I did not. I just said the evidence was not strong enough for conviction. Just because I say that does not necessarily mean I truly believe a person to be innocent as in they literally did not do it, just that legally the evidence was insufficient for conviction.

I think this guy had something of a sympathetic image because he was Martin Luther King's physician in a civil rights era where people tend to have a lot of empathy toward the black population. But if you look past all that he was just some big shot doctor with a selfish nature.

Yep, can't agree more. I hate it when people hide behind their civil rights work or other such things. Notice that is how the segment started out. When Dr. Branion said, "you know, I have always fought for equal rights and fair treatment ...". Ugh! Spare me the smokescreen and the self-patting on the back. You've heard of name dropping? This is similar - only that he is dropping the name of a movement instead of a person.

Wow, selfish because he did something well? I am sure the producers of the show asked him about that first and he talked about it. That is hardly selfish that he was interested in something. I am assuming you guys have interests and things you are passionate about and things that you have done well, does that make you selfish too? How is it a smokescreen? The guy was already in prison. It was not like he could hide that fact, whether he was innocent or not. So that is not a smokescreen.

Wow, selfish because he did something well? I am sure the producers of the show asked him about that first and he talked about it. That is hardly selfish that he was interested in something. I am assuming you guys have interests and things you are passionate about and things that you have done well, does that make you selfish too? How is it a smokescreen? The guy was already in prison. It was not like he could hide that fact, whether he was innocent or not. So that is not a smokescreen.

I didn't say he was selfish because of his medical career or civil rights activist endeavors, I thought he had a selfish nature because he was a long time philanderer and basically acted like there was nothing wrong with it.

He didn't act like there was nothing wrong with it. He was trying to say that his affair was not a motive for killing his wife as she had known about it for years. I think we all have selfish natures to a degree, many people cheat on their spouses, does that make us and them all murderers too?

He didn't act like there was nothing wrong with it. He was trying to say that his affair was not a motive for killing his wife as she had known about it for years. I think we all have selfish natures to a degree, many people cheat on their spouses, does that make us and them all murderers too?

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to say that all adulterers are murderers: that is a hyperbole that you are using for the sake of belittling and ridiculing the opinions of others - which you have a penchant for.

But if you flip it back around, when a wife ends up shot to death in her own home, the most likely murderer is the husband who has committed adultery on her and who has just recently threatened to divorce him.

Oh brother Wamisto, whatever. I was not ridiculing anyone, but do you need your hand held? Give me a break. I love how you cry a river about how I am allegedly ridiculing another posters points and then you act all high and mighty and condemn me for it and then turn around and do the same thing to me that you were just condemning me for allegedly doing to somebody else.

You miss the point so entirely it is stunning. First off, I was not ridiculing and belittling anyone sir/ma'am. You misinterpret things because we are typing and not talking. So before you jump to conclusions you might ask me to clarify my opinion? I was merely saying that because the guy cheated on his wife did not necessarily mean that because his wife was murdered that he was the one that did it. I did not express it in quite a politically correct point of view. By the way, I don't have a 'penchant' for belittling and ridiculing others. That is absurd. If I think you are wrong, I will certainly point it out but I do not do it for the purpose of ridiculing or belittling you. Showing someone how in my opinion they are wrong is not ridiculing or belittling. I suppose disagreeing with someone is ridiculing or belittling?

Also, I never flipped anything around Wamisto, that is absurd. I was merely pointing out to you there was a possibility Branion did not do it. It is not nearly as far fetched as you make it out to be. Maybe you are right, maybe he went home that day and killed his wife and made it look like a burglary/attempted sexual assault or maybe someone else at his direction did it? I really do not know. I explained to you that just because I said the evidence in my opinion was legally insufficient for a conviction did not necessarily think I thought for sure Branion did not do it. To me, the issue is less about whether Branion did it or not and more was the evidence strong enough to convict him? In my opinion no, at least not the way the state argued the case. They argued that he himself personally pulled the trigger. Okay, that is fine, except when you cannot conclusively say that he could have made it home in time to commit the murder and stuff, that is a problem. How can you convict a man of killing his wife when you cannot even be sure that he was at home at the time the murder occurred? If you are not sure he could have been there than it does not matter whether you personally think he did it or not, you are legally obligated to acquit.

Also yes Wamisto, you are right in that when someone is murdered, the majority of the time it is either their significant other or a member of their family or a friend or at least someone they knew before the killing that is responsible. However just because that is the case the majority of the time does not mean it is the case all the time. While you did not say this per se, you implied it. As if you assume that if someone is murdered, you assume the spouse did it until proven otherwise. I don't think that way.

We are an innocent until proven guilty society in this country. You even attempting to speculate about American jurisprudence would be me like trying to speculate about Canada's jurisprudence. I get people these days tend to think guilty until proven innocent but that is a pretty scary thought. I was merely saying the state in terms of what they were arguing did not in my opinion prove their case. You can acquit someone and think they are guilty. It is not about what you personally think. You are not supposed to base your decision one way or the other on your personal opinions. You are supposed to base it on the evidence presented to you.

I watched this one again today. I think I may have missed the boat on this earlier, but I do think the D'Amatos make a good point - Branion is innocent LEGALLY because the prosecution put forward the flawed theory that Branion killed his wife himself, a task that would have been all but impossible.

The prosecutor says he thought Branion caused his wife's death in some capacity (hired a hitman, basically) but that was not the theory presented in court. Huh?

Wouldn't that make Branion's conviction illegal, and therefore it could be overturned?

This is an interesting segment. While I believe that Branion probably did have something to do with his wife's death, I don't know if he should have gotten a life sentence based on that flawed theory.

Any thoughts?

I watched this one again today. I think I may have missed the boat on this earlier, but I do think the D'Amatos make a good point - Branion is innocent LEGALLY because the prosecution put forward the flawed theory that Branion killed his wife himself, a task that would have been all but impossible.

The prosecutor says he thought Branion caused his wife's death in some capacity (hired a hitman, basically) but that was not the theory presented in court. Huh?

Wouldn't that make Branion's conviction illegal, and therefore it could be overturned?

This is an interesting segment. While I believe that Branion probably did have something to do with his wife's death, I don't know if he should have gotten a life sentence based on that flawed theory.

Any thoughts?

I've never really thought he was guilty but haven't done any research beyond watching the UM segment. Do you think his motive was getting his wife out of the way so he could marry his mistress?

No, not all adulterers are murderers.

But adultery, especially when its carried out for years and years, does indicate a selfish nature. And someone without a lot of love in their heart. At least not for their wife.

I've always been a believer that all sins can lead to other sins, and I think a long time adulterer is more likely to be a murderer than someone who is not. Because like I said, its indicative of a selfish nature.

Now no one is perfect, and if a man or a woman is married for many years and has a couple of slip ups here and there and feels bad for it, thats one thing.

But to carry on an affair for years and act like there is nothing wrong with it, thats a little different.

Here's my take on this case:

Branion's defense team that was trying to get him exonerated for killing his wife were right when they said that Branion could not have physically been at the scene of the crime when his wife was murdered. And being that he was convicted for murdering her that would make him innocent of the crime he was CHARGED for. But I think they're statement on the UM segment is a bit misleading. I think that they're telling the truth that yes, Branion could not have been the trigger man but what they fail to mention is the fact that Branion could have easily hired someone to kill his wife. Let's take a look at the facts. So two days after your wife is brutally murdered you take a vacation with a woman you've been having an affair with for six years? If that doesn't SCREAM guilty, then I don't know what does. And he refuses to take a polygraph examination, but he's willing to submit to a nitrate/gun residue test? What does that tell you? That he most likely would have been found to have being deceptive when asked if he knew who killed his wife? I know almost everyone says "Well lie detector tests are unreliable, and they're inadmissable in court" but my question is, if you are innocent of any wrong-doing why not take a polygraph? Even if Branion didn't want to take the polygraph because he deemed it "unreliable", there still was the chance that it would come out right which would have cast suspicion AWAY from Branion. Branion's wife was shot 12 times and nothing was taken away from their apartment...so that rules out robbery and also a random act of violence (12 times seems more like a crime of passion, IMO) So who would have motive to commit this savage crime? IMO there's only one person and that's Branion himself. He may not have pulled the trigger, but there's no doubt in my mind that he hired people to do it for him.

I watched this one again today. I think I may have missed the boat on this earlier, but I do think the D'Amatos make a good point - Branion is innocent LEGALLY because the prosecution put forward the flawed theory that Branion killed his wife himself, a task that would have been all but impossible.

The prosecutor says he thought Branion caused his wife's death in some capacity (hired a hitman, basically) but that was not the theory presented in court. Huh?

Wouldn't that make Branion's conviction illegal, and therefore it could be overturned?

This is an interesting segment. While I believe that Branion probably did have something to do with his wife's death, I don't know if he should have gotten a life sentence based on that flawed theory.

Any thoughts?

I believe that Dr. Branion was very poorly served by counsel at trial and during his appeals process. Although his activities just after his wife's death and his decision to flee justice were the acts of a guilty person, if the prosecutors were unable to prove that he was physically responsible for his wife's death and since that's what they charged him w/ doing, then the case should have been dismissed.

Since Cr. Branion's counsel seem to be unable to grasp that fact or even to be unable to capitalize upon it either during his trial or during his appeals, it appears that he was poorly served by them.

I also forgot to mention in my post that an innocent man does not FLEE THE COUNTRY for 12 years.

I felt sympathy for him until finding out he had an affair for years. I don't think he did the actual killing though.

Let's take a look at the facts. So two days after your wife is brutally murdered you take a vacation with a woman you've been having an affair with for six years? If that doesn't SCREAM guilty, then I don't know what does.

Thomas Drake moved his mistress and her son into his home while his wife was fighting for her life in the hospital yet many still believe he was innocent.

And he refuses to take a polygraph examination, but he's willing to submit to a nitrate/gun residue test? What does that tell you? That he most likely would have been found to have being deceptive when asked if he knew who killed his wife? I know almost everyone says "Well lie detector tests are unreliable, and they're inadmissable in court" but my question is, if you are innocent of any wrong-doing why not take a polygraph? Even if Branion didn't want to take the polygraph because he deemed it "unreliable", there still was the chance that it would come out right which would have cast suspicion AWAY from Branion.

If the re-enactment is accurate (big if) then Branion was questioned with his attorney present and his attorney advised him not to take the polygraph test. Even if the re-enactment isn't accurate in that regard - I wouldn't be surprised if the re-enactment of Branion's interrogation is a more simplistic made-for-TV consumption depiction of what was likely a series of more complex events - Branion at least had an attorney at that point (a smart move), and most criminal defense attorneys advise their clients not to consent to a polygraph.

I also forgot to mention in my post that an innocent man does not FLEE THE COUNTRY for 12 years.

I think this is subjective. At the time he fled, all of his appeals had failed. It meant he was going to prison. I think it is hard to say what anyone would do in that situation. Imagine if he was innocent. Would he really want to sit in prison for the next 20 years for something he knows he didn't do?

While I think Branion probably had a hand in the crime, I don't understand the motive. I don't think the affair was the motive. It had been going on for 6 years by the time Donna was murdered and it seems as if all parties knew it was going on. While it is impossible to know just how Donna Branion felt about the affair, I think we can conclude that at a minimum she tolerated it as it had continued unabated for that amount of time.

Thomas Drake moved his mistress and her son into his home while his wife was fighting for her life in the hospital yet many still believe he was innocent.

Yes but it's apples and oranges with Drake and Branion. Drake moved his mistress in two weeks after his wife's brutal attack. According to Drake his marriage was all but over with at that point. And his wife survived the attack and she said it was a man other than Drake who attacked her.

If the re-enactment is accurate (big if) then Branion was questioned with his attorney present and his attorney advised him not to take the polygraph test. Even if the re-enactment isn't accurate in that regard - I wouldn't be surprised if the re-enactment of Branion's interrogation is a more simplistic made-for-TV consumption depiction of what was likely a series of more complex events - Branion at least had an attorney at that point (a smart move), and most criminal defense attorneys advise their clients not to consent to a polygraph.

His attorney may have advised him against a polygraph. It just seems to me like he was eager to take a nitrate test, something that most people wouldn't even know existed. I think he planned this out and wanted to submit to the nitrate test as a way to throw suspicioun away from himself as the triggerman.

I think this is subjective. At the time he fled, all of his appeals had failed. It meant he was going to prison. I think it is hard to say what anyone would do in that situation. Imagine if he was innocent. Would he really want to sit in prison for the next 20 years for something he knows he didn't do?

I disagree. I certainly wouldn't want to sit in prison for twenty years for something I didn't do. But I also wouldn't want to flee the country to avoid jailtime, which would even indicate my guilt that much further. He was lucky enough to be free while his appeals were being exhausted. Had he been a "regular joe", he most certainly would have been sitting in a jail cell for that three year time period.

While I think Branion probably had a hand in the crime, I don't understand the motive. I don't think the affair was the motive. It had been going on for 6 years by the time Donna was murdered and it seems as if all parties knew it was going on. While it is impossible to know just how Donna Branion felt about the affair, I think we can conclude that at a minimum she tolerated it as it had continued unabated for that amount of time.

I'm not sure what the motive would be either. I think there's still enough evidence to suggest Branion being involved with his wife's death, where a motive wouldn't even matter. We may never know what motive Branion would have in having his wife killed. But what motive would two unknown assailants have in breaking into Branion's house, using Branion's bullets to murder his wife, not take anything of value from the house, and not sexually abuse his wife? Branion definitely had the means to hire someone to kill his wife and I think he did just that.

I disagree. I certainly wouldn't want to sit in prison for twenty years for something I didn't do. But I also wouldn't want to flee the country to avoid jailtime, which would even indicate my guilt that much further. He was lucky enough to be free while his appeals were being exhausted. Had he been a "regular joe", he most certainly would have been sitting in a jail cell for that three year time period.

I agree to an extent and understand your point about fleeing the country indicating his guilt that much further. However, my question is, does it really matter? He's been convicted and all of his appeals have failed. He is facing 20 years in prison. If he is out of legal avenues by which to challenge the conviction, what else is he going to do? Does it really matter then if he clears his name from a legal and/or public opinion standpoint?

I presume most criminals who go on the run don't anticipate getting caught. Perhaps Branion thought he could start a new life in Africa. Clearing his name wouldn't matter in that event.

I agree to an extent and understand your point about fleeing the country indicating his guilt that much further. However, my question is, does it really matter? He's been convicted and all of his appeals have failed. He is facing 20 years in prison. If he is out of legal avenues by which to challenge the conviction, what else is he going to do? Does it really matter then if he clears his name from a legal and/or public opinion standpoint?

I presume most criminals who go on the run don't anticipate getting caught. Perhaps Branion thought he could start a new life in Africa. Clearing his name wouldn't matter in that event.

Branion, being an educated man, should have known that appeals are almost never exhausted fully. Just look at how much "evidence" Jeffrey MacDonald's attorney's have unearthed in hopes of getting a new trial. I do think the prosecution was quick to point the finger at Branion as the triggerman to get the case solved and convicted. Unfortunately I think there's someone else who got away with murder scot-free.

"His attorney may have advised him against a polygraph. It just seems to me like he was eager to take a nitrate test, something that most people wouldn't even know existed. I think he planned this out and wanted to submit to the nitrate test as a way to throw suspicioun away from himself as the triggerman."

Great point...

Branion, being an educated man, should have known that appeals are almost never exhausted fully. Just look at how much "evidence" Jeffrey MacDonald's attorney's have unearthed in hopes of getting a new trial. I do think the prosecution was quick to point the finger at Branion as the triggerman to get the case solved and convicted. Unfortunately I think there's someone else who got away with murder scot-free.

Still though, with prison looming in the immediate future - was he really going to take a chance on some appeal working while he is sitting in a prison cell, or would he take off and start a new life while he still had the chance to do so?

For what it's worth, I don't advocate what he did. I just never believed that his leaving the country was damning or had any real bearing on the question of whether he committed the crime.

Branion, being an educated man, should have known that appeals are almost never exhausted fully. Just look at how much "evidence" Jeffrey MacDonald's attorney's have unearthed in hopes of getting a new trial. I do think the prosecution was quick to point the finger at Branion as the triggerman to get the case solved and convicted. Unfortunately I think there's someone else who got away with murder scot-free.

I always got this weird suspicious vibe from Dr. Branion and would not be surprised if he did hire someone to kill his wife. However, the prosecution's entire case was built entirely around the theory that Branion committed the murder himself and I don't believe the idea of a hitman was ever even presented in court. Given what he was officially charged with and the nearly impossible timeline Branion had to pull off the crime on his own, he most definitely should have been found "not guilty" at the original trial.

While I'm not entirely sure that Branion is 100 % innocent of the crime, sadly, I do agree that a poor investigation may have allowed another person to get away with the murder. If Branion was involved, he deserved to go to prison, but not if it meant that another murderer was going to be ignored and allowed to roam free and possibly kill someone else.

I always got this weird suspicious vibe from Dr. Branion and would not be surprised if he did hire someone to kill his wife. However, the prosecution's entire case was built entirely around the theory that Branion committed the murder himself and I don't believe the idea of a hitman was ever even presented in court. Given what he was officially charged with and the nearly impossible timeline Branion had to pull off the crime on his own, he most definitely should have been found "not guilty" at the original trial.

While I'm not entirely sure that Branion is 100 % innocent of the crime, sadly, I do agree that a poor investigation may have allowed another person to get away with the murder. If Branion was involved, he deserved to go to prison, but not if it meant that another murderer was going to be ignored and allowed to roam free and possibly kill someone else.

When I first saw Branion's case many years ago, I didn't appreciate the finer details nor the legal arguments.

I think Branion hired someone to murder his wife. He ended up exactly where he deserved to be.

However, were the methods that landed him there legal and ethical?

How could the prosecution present a theory that Branion alone shot his wife, when even the prosecutor later admitted that he always had some doubt that Branion pulled the trigger?

Even if Branion did hire someone and deserves to be in prison for that, I think he should have been found "not guilty" or his conviction overturned as it was impossible for him to have pulled the trigger as the state alleged.

Unfortunately, all indications are the case was fouled up from the start and since Branion himself is dead, we'll never know what really happened or who else may have been involved.

I think Branion hired someone to murder his wife. He ended up exactly where he deserved to be.

However, were the methods that landed him there legal and ethical?

How could the prosecution present a theory that Branion alone shot his wife, when even the prosecutor later admitted that he always had some doubt that Branion pulled the trigger?

Had the prosecution not pegged Branion as the triggerman, there goes their whole case. While most of the evidence, largely circumstantial, suggests Branion was involved somehow, I still don't think they could have got a conviction had they not named him as the murderer. Could that be considered unethical? Maybe. But I'm still glad to see he landed in prison (where he belonged). Unfortunately, I too don't think Branion was the actual murderer of his wife, so someone walked away free. Just glad to see that some justice was served in this case.

I find it amazing that there are supporters of his innocence. Yes I get that it was physically impossible for him to have been there to murder his wife in the time frame given, but that doesn't mean he didn't contract someone to do it for him. It was his bullets used to murder his wife. How would an intruder know the location of these bullets without some prior knowledge? Nothing was taken from the residence, so burglary can be ruled out. And Branion's wife was shot repeatedly, almost as if it were to make sure she was dead. Also the lady from Branion's son's school said it was very odd for Branion to have picked his son up at the time he did that day. Honestly, what are the odds that on the day Branion decides to pick his son up from school at a time different than usual, is the same day his wife is murdered? And Branion had a lunch date apparently set up with his wife and another woman, but the woman cancelled at the last minute. Does anyone else see the significance in this? IMO (and this is just a theory of mine), Branion set up the lunch date with this lady so he could have someone with him "discover" his dead wife, thereby providing an alibi for himself. When the lady cancelled the lunch plans, he shifted gears and picked his son up as a last minute back up plan. And if that's true, Branion certainly did deserve where he wound up and he should have died in prison.

I find it amazing that there are supporters of his innocence. Yes I get that it was physically impossible for him to have been there to murder his wife in the time frame given, but that doesn't mean he didn't contract someone to do it for him. It was his bullets used to murder his wife. How would an intruder know the location of these bullets without some prior knowledge? Nothing was taken from the residence, so burglary can be ruled out. And Branion's wife was shot repeatedly, almost as if it were to make sure she was dead. Also the lady from Branion's son's school said it was very odd for Branion to have picked his son up at the time he did that day. Honestly, what are the odds that on the day Branion decides to pick his son up from school at a time different than usual, is the same day his wife is murdered? And Branion had a lunch date apparently set up with his wife and another woman, but the woman cancelled at the last minute. Does anyone else see the significance in this? IMO (and this is just a theory of mine), Branion set up the lunch date with this lady so he could have someone with him "discover" his dead wife, thereby providing an alibi for himself. When the lady cancelled the lunch plans, he shifted gears and picked his son up as a last minute back up plan. And if that's true, Branion certainly did deserve where he wound up and he should have died in prison.

While I do believe the two assailant hitman theory is likely correct, I can't believe how badly they bungled it. They could have at least taken SOMETHING from the house to make it seem as though a burglary had been committed.

Also, it would appear that they arrived at the house with no weapon of their own. They had to use one of Branion's own weapons and his ammo to commit the murder. A pathologist testified that a cord was wrapped around Donna Branion's neck for at least 15 minutes before the gun was used. I can only conclude that they attempted to strangle her and failed, forcing them to come up with an alternative - the gun.

Interesting too how Branion pointed out in the interview that when he discovered the body Donna's skirt was pushed up over her knees. I wonder if this was done by the killers as an attempt to make authorities think it was a sex crime. However, the sex crime angle is ruled out because they didn't molest her.

I wonder if the killers broke in anticipating strangling Donna Branion and staging a burglary. When their attempt to strangle her failed, they panicked and spent several minutes looking for a gun and ammo. After shooting her, they feared neighbors heard the shots so they quickly hiked up her skirt in a last ditch attempt to make the crime appear sexually motivated and then fled the scene.

Here's my take on this case:

Branion's defense team that was trying to get him exonerated for killing his wife were right when they said that Branion could not have physically been at the scene of the crime when his wife was murdered. And being that he was convicted for murdering her that would make him innocent of the crime he was CHARGED for. But I think they're statement on the UM segment is a bit misleading. I think that they're telling the truth that yes, Branion could not have been the trigger man but what they fail to mention is the fact that Branion could have easily hired someone to kill his wife. Let's take a look at the facts. So two days after your wife is brutally murdered you take a vacation with a woman you've been having an affair with for six years? If that doesn't SCREAM guilty, then I don't know what does. And he refuses to take a polygraph examination, but he's willing to submit to a nitrate/gun residue test? What does that tell you? That he most likely would have been found to have being deceptive when asked if he knew who killed his wife? I know almost everyone says "Well lie detector tests are unreliable, and they're inadmissable in court" but my question is, if you are innocent of any wrong-doing why not take a polygraph? Even if Branion didn't want to take the polygraph because he deemed it "unreliable", there still was the chance that it would come out right which would have cast suspicion AWAY from Branion. Branion's wife was shot 12 times and nothing was taken away from their apartment...so that rules out robbery and also a random act of violence (12 times seems more like a crime of passion, IMO) So who would have motive to commit this savage crime? IMO there's only one person and that's Branion himself. He may not have pulled the trigger, but there's no doubt in my mind that he hired people to do it for him.

I always thought he was innocent. I think race has a lot to do with it. Wasnt there only one african american on the jury? I found it strange that they mentioned his affair and the wife knew about it. Why stay with someone who you know is cheating on you?(thats a differnt topic though).

I see an interesting parallel between the Branion case and the Consagra case. In both instances, it was obvious others committed or participated in the crimes but there was only enough evidence to indict one person. In both instances, however, the person ultimately convicted was likely the instigator of the entire plot and was correctly sentenced. Yet the issue of whether they were correctly adjudicated, due in large part to their co-conspirators getting away Scot-free, is certainly valid.

^^^Race definitely played a part on Dr. B's treatment and the handling of the case!

As to why a woman would stay with a man who cheated in a long-term affair? IMO, the times were different and ladies, esp. black ladies, had very few resources at the time. He provided money and a certain prestige being a doctor.....

Just rewatched this case and wanted to comment when it was fresh on my mind. The whole "race" issue that continually was played up (due to the fact that Branion was convicted by 12 jurors, 11 of whom were white) is ludicrous, IMHO. I don't see how this could even be considered anything racial, considering Branion was black as was his wife. And don't you think if the judicial system was deadset on "railroading" Branion they would have immediately put him away after convicted? This is a glaring point that is briefly mentioned in the UM segment that I had forgot about: Branion was free on bail for three years after he was convicted! He spent the next three years (after his conviction) exhausting is appeals. Does this sound like mistreatment because of his race?! I think it has more to do with the fact that Branion came from a well-to-do background (his father was a successful attorney and Branion himself was a successful doctor) who had connections with the right people (he was the personal physician of MLK). If anything, this man was favored by the judicial system, not prejudiced. Do you think any run of the mill, blue collar working class person would be allowed to stay free after being convicted for murdering their spouse?

There are some other points that point to Branion's guilt that UM glossed over that I had forgotten about. Police determined that Branion owned a gun that "could" have been the one used in his wife's death. But he told police initially that he owned no such gun. But his brother-in-law testified that on the day of Donna's death, Branion told him that the gun in question (can't recall the specific model) was missing from his residence. So it was his brother-in-law who was the one who exposed the lie about not owning the gun, not law enforcement. There was also 4 spent shells found at the scene of the murder. Branion had a stash of ammunition that he kept in a closet (as depicted in the UM segment), which just so happened to be missing 4 shells! So if Branion is innocent, we must accept the fact that whoever murdered Donna broke in to the Branion residence, unarmed, knew exactly where Branion kept his guns and ammo and killed Donna without sexually assaulting her or taking anything out of the residence other than the murder weapon. In essence, Branion's wife was killed over a gun if you believe the Branion is innocent theory.

I even thought about the possibility of someone attempting to setup Branion. It would explain why his gun and his bullets were used and nothing was taken from the house. But I have a hard time believing that. The UM segment likes to hint that he was a prominent figure in the civil rights movement, but outside of him being the "personal physician" to MLK, there really is no evidence of this. I just don't really see any reason as to why anybody would have a motive to set Branion up for a crime he didn't commit (not to mention know where Branion hid his guns and his ammunition in the house). It seems like when someone in the civil rights movement wanted to be "silenced" by others who opposed it, they went after the person directly. It makes absolutely no sense to me as to why someone would go after Branion's wife instead of Branion directly. Not to mention there is a huge risk factor involved. What if a neighbor saw 2 "strange" men entering or leaving the Branion residence? And how did they know Branion would be convicted? There was never any evidence brought forward that showed ANYONE who had a beef with Branion to the point that they would kill his wife with the intention of framing him.

Branion also married his mistress shortly after he was convicted. I had forgotten all about that little tidbit as well. And the "lunch date" that Branion had planned that day was scheduled "at the very last possible minute the night before" according to the prosecution. Everything just seems so planned in this case:
-Nothing was stolen from the house (outside of one of Branion's pistols which "may" have been the one used to kill Donna).
-Branion's gun was used and/or missing.
-Branion's ammunition was used.
-Branion went to pick his son up that day unexpectedly.
-Branion made last minute lunch plans for the day his wife was murdered.
-Branion was the one who discovered his wife.

I know some will say that if Branion was involved in his wife's death, why would he expose his son to seeing her dead body? I think the reason Branion had his child with him was to simply have someone else with him when he "discovered" Donna. I think he knew more heat would be drawn on him if he were the sole person who found her, since there would be no one else around to establish an alibi and time frame. Although I don't think Branion was the actual triggerman, I think he should have died in prison and I think it was a joke that he was released. So his defense team wasn't necessarily incorrect when they said it was impossible for him to have committed the crime. I just find it odd that no one ever brought up the possibility that he hired someone to kill his wife. Because that's exactly what I think he did.

I just find it odd that no one ever brought up the possibility that he hired someone to kill his wife. Because that's exactly what I think he did.

It was brought out when the segment aired on NBC. However, when the series was syndicated on Lifetime, this part was edited out, presumably so they could squeeze in the update about his death. I would guess the Lifetime version is more prevalent than the NBC version, as far as what's out there.

As I remember it, Stack suggested that Branion might still be guilty.

Then the prosecutor said something lame like "I never was sure he pulled the trigger himself, but I feel he was still responsible for his wife's death".

Cut to a VERY irate and inflamed Branion who says "how can he believe something when there is no evidence of it?! If there was a second party involved, why didn't they catch him and hang us both?!

Cut to Branion's defenders who are still campaigning for Branion's immediate release because the hitman theory wasn't brought up at the trial and therefore is legally irrelevant.

This whole exchange just really made it seem apparent, to me at least, that Branion definitely could have had a hand in the crime by way of murder for hire. Even his own pro bono attorneys stop just short of completely refuting the theory as bogus.

This whole exchange just really made it seem apparent, to me at least, that Branion definitely could have had a hand in the crime by way of murder for hire. Even his own pro bono attorneys stop just short of completely refuting the theory as bogus.

I got that vibe even from the Lifetime segment. I always thought it was odd that his defense team never explicity said that they believed in his innocence, but instead said he was innocent of the crime he was convicted for. That was a neat little tidbit about the NBC version and I think it was stupid to not include it.

I got that vibe even from the Lifetime segment. I always thought it was odd that his defense team never explicity said that they believed in his innocence, but instead said he was innocent of the crime he was convicted for. That was a neat little tidbit about the NBC version and I think it was stupid to not include it.

Now I want to see this case again! There were are a lot of little things in this case that I may have missed.

Bingo, Bingo, and Bingo! Couldn't have said it better myself!

1. I would also add the way his eyes darted and shifted in the segment when he said he did not and could not have killed his wife.

2A. Everything matt said here, especially that last sentence. He had driven that stretch hundreds of times - he knew when the lights would change, how busy it was depending on the day, the hour, etc. He would have done everything possible to make sure he did things in as little time as possible, specifically because he was trying to give himself an alibi. His investigative team working on his appeal bought it - it's just the jury didn't.

2B. Another thing - the murder took place on Friday, December 22, three days before Christmas. How many people do you think booked time off to give themselves an extended Christmas break? Where I work, when Christmas falls on a Monday, the place is practically empty the Friday before. I bet there were hardly any cars on the road - and the cops were probably not patrolling the streets vigilantly for speeders.

2C. As for snow, I'm from Canada, and we can rip through it pretty fast.

3. mah79 also added that Branion hung out with these shady characters when he jumped bail and became a fugitive living in Africa. I hate to make him guilty by association, but if you hang with murderers and tyrants, it would not be a stretch to think you would be capable of killing the wife you are about to divorce.

Wamisto, in regard to some of your points:

2A & B: Yes, I agree that he could have a general idea of the light change, but one can never predict traffic on a typical day, much less right before Christmas. I live in a town in Central Michigan where to get across town, usually anywhere from 15-20 min, takes up to one hr in December because of the holiday shopping traffic.

2C: I'm from Michigan and I agree we in our part of North America are better able to get through snow than say, someone from Arizona. However, even the most experienced driver will slow down in the winter. During the last nasty snowfall a couple of weeks ago, a 15 min stretch to work on US 127 took 45 minutes to get through and there were 5 cars in the ditch. I also lived up in the Soo for 4 years and when it came to winter, the Canadians and people who were native from the U.P. I knew didn't "rip through it", as fellow poster and Michigander wiseguy182 and others can attest to.

3. Yes, one could say that when you hang out w/ shady characters it doesn't make one look good. One can also surmise he might have been one who got off hanging out w/ the Black Panthers and danger. Doesn't always a murderer make.

You raise valid points, but each could just as well be counterpointed.

Oh brother Wamisto, whatever. I was not ridiculing anyone, but do you need your hand held? Give me a break. I love how you cry a river about how I am allegedly ridiculing another posters points and then you act all high and mighty and condemn me for it and then turn around and do the same thing to me that you were just condemning me for allegedly doing to somebody else.

You miss the point so entirely it is stunning. First off, I was not ridiculing and belittling anyone sir/ma'am. You misinterpret things because we are typing and not talking. So before you jump to conclusions you might ask me to clarify my opinion? I was merely saying that because the guy cheated on his wife did not necessarily mean that because his wife was murdered that he was the one that did it. I did not express it in quite a politically correct point of view. By the way, I don't have a 'penchant' for belittling and ridiculing others. That is absurd. If I think you are wrong, I will certainly point it out but I do not do it for the purpose of ridiculing or belittling you. Showing someone how in my opinion they are wrong is not ridiculing or belittling. I suppose disagreeing with someone is ridiculing or belittling?

Also, I never flipped anything around Wamisto, that is absurd. I was merely pointing out to you there was a possibility Branion did not do it. It is not nearly as far fetched as you make it out to be. Maybe you are right, maybe he went home that day and killed his wife and made it look like a burglary/attempted sexual assault or maybe someone else at his direction did it? I really do not know. I explained to you that just because I said the evidence in my opinion was legally insufficient for a conviction did not necessarily think I thought for sure Branion did not do it. To me, the issue is less about whether Branion did it or not and more was the evidence strong enough to convict him? In my opinion no, at least not the way the state argued the case. They argued that he himself personally pulled the trigger. Okay, that is fine, except when you cannot conclusively say that he could have made it home in time to commit the murder and stuff, that is a problem. How can you convict a man of killing his wife when you cannot even be sure that he was at home at the time the murder occurred? If you are not sure he could have been there than it does not matter whether you personally think he did it or not, you are legally obligated to acquit.

Hallelujah! Thank you, Kadmas. Wamisto, whether you meant to or not, I have been reading your posts and got the same impression that Kadrmas did. Dude, he wasn't calling you an idiot or making fun of you. He was making counterpoints in a clear and concise manner which to me and some others here, are valid ones.

You are entitled to disagree and state your opinion. An exchange of ideas is what this board is all about. Debate gets people to think about the issue. However, instead of going into a P****** contest on a message board about an accused murderer, take five to read the message and ask for clarification if needed. If the opinion offends you, either take it up in a PM or be an adult and stay on point.

Now on to my opinion.

I hedge towards Dr Brannion being innocent of murdering his wife. Was he a pig in real life?....hell yes. Could he have hired someone to do the deed?....possibly.

However, I got the impression there was still deep feeling and affection for his late wife as he was talking about her. Dr Brannion came out and admitted he was having an affair. Didn't sugar coat it. The mistress knew he was married and didn't seem to have an issue w/ it.

The detective even admitted they did not fully account for the timeline of Dr Brannion, creating a big hole in the prosecution's theory.

There was no one who came out and said that Dr Brannion and/or Shirley his mistress wanted Mrs. Brannion dead, either overheard or witness to.

Kadmas is right in regard to reasonable doubt. The US Constitution states innocent until proven guilty. Our jurisprudence also states, that if you have reasonable doubt in regards to a defendant's guilt, you must acquit. I am not sure of how the law works in Canada in this respect but this is how it is supposed to be in our country. I also admit I do not know what was going through the jurors' minds when deliberating in 1968, but the time was one where tensions were still high d/t racism, Dr King's assassination, Vietnam, and other events.

I don't think this is a case where it will be completely solved. Principals are dead now. I just hope Mrs. Brannion got justice in some shape or form.

I just find it odd that no one ever brought up the possibility that he hired someone to kill his wife. Because that's exactly what I think he did.

the cars1986 - I love your posts. They are so well thought out and you brought up a point I had not thought of before...I do agree that I am sure race played a role in Dr. Branion's ordeal, but as you pointed out he was a well regarded doctor and his own dad was a lawyer.

the cars1986 - I love your posts. They are so well thought out and you brought up a point I had not thought of before...I do agree that I am sure race played a role in Dr. Branion's ordeal, but as you pointed out he was a well regarded doctor and his own dad was a lawyer.

Thank you!

I recently rewatched this segment. I haven't been familiar with it for very long--maybe only a year and a half or so, so my conclusions on it are not as tested as with some other cases. BUT, I do think I've come to a pretty certain opinion.

I think Dr. Branion hired someone to kill his wife. There are plenty of logical arguments concerning the events surrounding the case detailed in this thread to support this, but that isn't what does it for me. It's the strange trip-of-the-switch demeanor Dr. Branion displays when asked about a hitman scenario. Throughout the entire interview--even when speaking about cheating on his wife and having no intention to leave her despite the long-term relationship with Shirley--he was graciously soft-spoken and pleasant. Then, suddenly, he becomes completely incensed--it's almost like a different person is sitting there. A seemingly out-of-place emotional reaction. That in and of itself pretty much does it for me. I always wondered why I got what RobinW called a suspicious vibe about Dr. Branion, and after thinking about it I realized that was it.

I recently rewatched this segment. I haven't been familiar with it for very long--maybe only a year and a half or so, so my conclusions on it are not as tested as with some other cases. BUT, I do think I've come to a pretty certain opinion.

I think Dr. Branion hired someone to kill his wife. There are plenty of logical arguments concerning the events surrounding the case detailed in this thread to support this, but that isn't what does it for me. It's the strange trip-of-the-switch demeanor Dr. Branion displays when asked about a hitman scenario. Throughout the entire interview--even when speaking about cheating on his wife and having no intention to leave her despite the long-term relationship with Shirley--he was graciously soft-spoken and pleasant. Then, suddenly, he becomes completely incensed--it's almost like a different person is sitting there. A seemingly out-of-place emotional reaction. That in and of itself pretty much does it for me. I always wondered why I got what RobinW called a suspicious vibe about Dr. Branion, and after thinking about it I realized that was it.

I've never seen this version, only heard about it. In both the Lifetime reruns of this segment (both Farina and Stack), they edited the part out about the possibility of Branion hiring someone to kill his wife. The only one I've ever seen makes no mention of the possibility that he could have hired a hitman, and it always bugged me because I always thought that's what he did.

At some point in my research I discovered that there is supposedly an hour long PBS special about the case that aired in the late eighties, probably around the time of the UM segment. It featured an extensive interview with Branion. I'd love to see it but I have a feeling I'd probably have better luck searching for Jimmy Hoffa.

I recently rewatched this segment. I haven't been familiar with it for very long--maybe only a year and a half or so, so my conclusions on it are not as tested as with some other cases. BUT, I do think I've come to a pretty certain opinion.

I think Dr. Branion hired someone to kill his wife. There are plenty of logical arguments concerning the events surrounding the case detailed in this thread to support this, but that isn't what does it for me. It's the strange trip-of-the-switch demeanor Dr. Branion displays when asked about a hitman scenario. Throughout the entire interview--even when speaking about cheating on his wife and having no intention to leave her despite the long-term relationship with Shirley--he was graciously soft-spoken and pleasant. Then, suddenly, he becomes completely incensed--it's almost like a different person is sitting there. A seemingly out-of-place emotional reaction. That in and of itself pretty much does it for me. I always wondered why I got what RobinW called a suspicious vibe about Dr. Branion, and after thinking about it I realized that was it.

To play devil's advocate, if he is, in fact, innocent of any wrong doing, I could understand the emotion as there is literally no evidence of hired help. The prosecutor's comments then about there being others involved would just be to save face because he was wrong.

For what it's worth, I think Branion's a scumbag and guilty as Hell, but the handling of the hitman theory was kind of bungled, IMO. The prosecutor blatantly admitted on UM that he had questions at the time of trial as to whether Branion was the actual trigger man, yet he was confident that Branion still had a hand in the crime. I've questioned the ethics of that on here before, and I'm surprised those statements in and of themselves weren't more ammo for Branions's defenders. I mean, if the prosecutor isn't even sure of his own theory, we're in trouble.

Again, I'm not losing sleep over it. The end justified the means. Still, from a legal standpoint, it is a bit troubling and I wouldn't be against Branion being released if it came to that since his conviction as the shooter is bogus and obtained through possible unethical means.

Again, I'm not losing sleep over it. The end justified the means. Still, from a legal standpoint, it is a bit troubling and I wouldn't be against Branion being released if it came to that since his conviction as the shooter is bogus and obtained through possible unethical means.

I don't think they could have got a conviction if they didn't name him as the triggerman. It would have been harder to prove the "hitman" theory, IMO, in a court of law. The prosecution had the murder weapon (owned by Branion), the ammo used (owned by Branion), and there was no motive anyone would have had in murdering his wife (other than Branion). I think it would have been too confusing and convoluted to try the whole hitman angle (although I think it is what happened) in front of a jury.

I don't think they could have got a conviction if they didn't name him as the triggerman. It would have been harder to prove the "hitman" theory, IMO, in a court of law. The prosecution had the murder weapon (owned by Branion), the ammo used (owned by Branion), and there was no motive anyone would have had in murdering his wife (other than Branion). I think it would have been too confusing and convoluted to try the whole hitman angle (although I think it is what happened) in front of a jury.


I wonder if they ever looked deeply into the hitman theory. I would imagine they checked Branion's bank records, if he made a large cash withdrawl not long before Donna's murder that would be a red flag but not proof, he could have said it was for something else.

Even so, short of a confession from the hired killer or killers themselves, thats probably the closest thing to evidence of a hitman they could obtain.

But what I can't figure out is if Branion did it, why did he have the killers use his own weapons to carry out the crime? Seems like it would be a lot safer to have them use their own weapon, or even give them money to purchase guns. I can only assume that he thought his alibi at the clinic would be enough to put him in the clear. If so, he miscalculated dreadfully. Its surprising to me that he didn't make his alibi a little more airtight by making sure he was somewhere else and seen for hours before and after Donna's murder to make it literally impossible for the cops to put the murder on him, and also surprising he apparently had the killers use his own weapon to commit the crime. Although I think Branion is guilty, I still wonder about those things. Do we sometimes simply give these guys credit for more brains than what they have? In Branion's case, he was a doctor so he was obviously smart. So it does seem a little strange he wouldn't take greater measures to cover up this crime.

Not only that, but his actions after the murder were damning as well. Marrying someone else when your murdered wife is barely even cold then running off? Thats not exactly the actions of a grieving husband or innocent man. Thats about a step short of dancing and urinating on her grave.

If Branion did indeed do this, it seems to me he was pretty sloppy in some aspects of it, and showed a surprising lack of intelligence for a doctor.

I wonder if they ever looked deeply into the hitman theory. I would imagine they checked Branion's bank records, if he made a large cash withdrawl not long before Donna's murder that would be a red flag but not proof, he could have said it was for something else.

Even so, short of a confession from the hired killer or killers themselves, thats probably the closest thing to evidence of a hitman they could obtain.

But what I can't figure out is if Branion did it, why did he have the killers use his own weapons to carry out the crime? Seems like it would be a lot safer to have them use their own weapon, or even give them money to purchase guns. I can only assume that he thought his alibi at the clinic would be enough to put him in the clear. If so, he miscalculated dreadfully. Its surprising to me that he didn't make his alibi a little more airtight by making sure he was somewhere else and seen for hours before and after Donna's murder to make it literally impossible for the cops to put the murder on him, and also surprising he apparently had the killers use his own weapon to commit the crime. Although I think Branion is guilty, I still wonder about those things. Do we sometimes simply give these guys credit for more brains than what they have? In Branion's case, he was a doctor so he was obviously smart. So it does seem a little strange he wouldn't take greater measures to cover up this crime.

Not only that, but his actions after the murder were damning as well. Marrying someone else when your murdered wife is barely even cold then running off? Thats not exactly the actions of a grieving husband or innocent man. Thats about a step short of dancing and urinating on her grave.

If Branion did indeed do this, it seems to me he was pretty sloppy in some aspects of it, and showed a surprising lack of intelligence for a doctor.

If you remember, the UM segment mentioned that Branion had a lunch date (IIRC it was his sister-in-law) planned for the day that his wife was murdered. I think this was going to be his attempt at having an airtight alibi. He could have went out with his relative to lunch and taken his time to make it back home to "discover" his wife. However, the relative cancelled the plans at the very last minute which is where I think Branion erred in altering his original plan. I honestly think Branion then came up with the idea of picking up his son from school (so people would see him and note the time) and he could have his son with him while he "discovered" his wife. That's the only reason I could see as to why he would expose his son to seeing something like that, because he had no other choice and needed a "witness" to corroborate his story.

I honestly think Branion then came up with the idea of picking up his son from school (so people would see him and note the time) and he could have his son with him while he "discovered" his wife. That's the only reason I could see as to why he would expose his son to seeing something like that, because he had no other choice and needed a "witness" to corroborate his story.

If Branion was guilty, then this would make him one of the more despicable people ever featured on UM. Deliberately exposing your 4-year old son to his mother's murdered body just for the purposes of creating an alibi is pretty damn twisted! Considering that his father would soon abandon him when he fled the country, I hope that poor kid turned out alright.

In my opinion there are two lynch pins in this case that point to Branion's guilt neither of which are airtight.

First off the fact that he was having an affair automatically dirties his credibility and makes him seem sorted. Now he claimed in the segment that his wife was aware that he had a girlfriend on the side but unfortunately there is no way of verifying that information. The affair also quite obviously could provide motive for wanting his wife dead. However the affair in enough of itself doesn't necessarily mean anything objectively speaking.

Second the evidence which has been brought up regarding the chain of events that lead up to the discovery of the body of Branion's wife. Could this have been Branion's way of establishing an alibi? It's hard to say. They could just as easily have been the normal schedule of events that he had planned for that particular day.

I've always been of the opinion that I'd find it much easier to buy into the hitman theory. I never have heard anyone offer any credible defense against this theory and that is because I don't think there is any defense against this theory. Dr. Branion could've easily hired some people to murder his wife at a time where he knew he would be out of the house for several hours. There would be nothing inherently suspicious about that because all the activities Branion was involved in on the day of his wife's murder were in line with his daily routine.

To me there has just never been enough evidence for me to buy into the theory that Branion murdered his wife and there has never been enough of a defense put forth to persuade me from believing that it's quite possible that Branion hired someone to murder his wife.

If Branion was guilty, then this would make him one of the more despicable people ever featured on UM. Deliberately exposing your 4-year old son to his mother's murdered body just for the purposes of creating an alibi is pretty damn twisted! Considering that his father would soon abandon him when he fled the country, I hope that poor kid turned out alright.

This again is another interesting angle which really leads nowhere. It could speak to Branion's innocence given that it might be more likely that Branion's son was exposed to his mother's murdered body due to the fact that Branion had no idea when he entered his apartment that she'd be found in that state.

Then again if he was involved in her murder in any way either doing it himself or hiring a hitman, it would all but destroy his credibility and make it easier for us to believe that a person like that wouldn't care what he exposed his child to.

It's really frustrating because outside of the fact that Branion was having an affair there is really no way of sketching out his character. The fact that he was having an affair in enough of itself does not make him a murderer however it does provide a potential motive in the case. Frustrating to say the least.

This again is another interesting angle which really leads nowhere. It could speak to Branion's innocence given that it might be more likely that Branion's son was exposed to his mother's murdered body due to the fact that Branion had no idea when he entered his apartment that she'd be found in that state.

Then again if he was involved in her murder in any way either doing it himself or hiring a hitman, it would all but destroy his credibility and make it easier for us to believe that a person like that wouldn't care what he exposed his child to.

It's really frustrating because outside of the fact that Branion was having an affair there is really no way of sketching out his character. The fact that he was having an affair in enough of itself does not make him a murderer however it does provide a potential motive in the case. Frustrating to say the least.


Its not just the affair, his actions after the death of his wife IMHO indicate a complete lack of feeling for her altogether. In fact as i said before he might as well have urinated on her grave.

Also, there is the fact that he lied about the lividity in her legs as an excuse not to check for vital signs, change his story twice about this in fact. Also he lied about owning the gun that killed her. Anyway you flush it, those things are extremely difficult to distort if you want to try to paint this guy as a grieving honorable man who only had one flaw of an affair. It also demonstates he was dishonest as well as extremely insensitive and uncaring.

I honestly cannot envision how Branion was not involved in this murder. To many events surrounding this murder point to a selfish, dishonest, and heartless person.

I honestly cannot envision how Branion was not involved in this murder. To many events surrounding this murder point to a selfish, dishonest, and heartless person.

I agree. He fled the country for years, after getting convicted. He was also allowed to remain free on bail for three years (after he was convicted) so he could exhaust his appeals. It's not like Branion didn't have plenty of time to convince the judicial system that he was not responsible for his wife's murder. But in all that time, he failed to do so. And there was never any viable suspect seen (strange men lurking around the Branion residence that day, etc.) other than Branion after all of these years. What does that tell you?

Its not just the affair, his actions after the death of his wife IMHO indicate a complete lack of feeling for her altogether. In fact as i said before he might as well have urinated on her grave.

Also, there is the fact that he lied about the lividity in her legs as an excuse not to check for vital signs, change his story twice about this in fact. Also he lied about owning the gun that killed her. Anyway you flush it, those things are extremely difficult to distort if you want to try to paint this guy as a grieving honorable man who only had one flaw of an affair. It also demonstates he was dishonest as well as extremely insensitive and uncaring.

I honestly cannot envision how Branion was not involved in this murder. To many events surrounding this murder point to a selfish, dishonest, and heartless person.

I tend to think he was involved somehow as well but just the fact that he no longer loved his wife doesn't necessarily tie him to her murder.

Its not just the affair, his actions after the death of his wife IMHO indicate a complete lack of feeling for her altogether. In fact as i said before he might as well have urinated on her grave.

Also, there is the fact that he lied about the lividity in her legs as an excuse not to check for vital signs, change his story twice about this in fact. Also he lied about owning the gun that killed her. Anyway you flush it, those things are extremely difficult to distort if you want to try to paint this guy as a grieving honorable man who only had one flaw of an affair. It also demonstates he was dishonest as well as extremely insensitive and uncaring.

I honestly cannot envision how Branion was not involved in this murder. To many events surrounding this murder point to a selfish, dishonest, and heartless person.

I think what's even worse than that he served as personal physician to Ugandan dictator Idi Amin all those years he was in hiding. Idi Amin's self-conferred title was "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular." And that's an inch of the tip of the iceberg.

It's disturbing to have committed one murder, but casting your lot with a murderer of thousands is truly depraved.

I think what's even worse than that he served as personal physician to Ugandan dictator Idi Amin all those years he was in hiding. Idi Amin's self-conferred title was "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular." And that's an inch of the tip of the iceberg.

It's disturbing to have committed one murder, but casting your lot with a murderer of thousands is truly depraved.

But he was quick to point out how he marched with Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement.

If Dr. King had lived long enough to know about Branion becoming that animal's physician, I'm betting he would have cringed being associated with this sleeze bag.

But he was quick to point out how he marched with Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement.

If Dr. King had lived long enough to know about Branion becoming that animal's physician, I'm betting he would have cringed being associated with this sleeze bag.

How Dr. Branion was able to reconcile supporting a man whose name is synonymous with non-violence and then someone who committed murder by the day is bizarre. What a strange personality he seems to be.

How Dr. Branion was able to reconcile supporting a man whose name is synonymous with non-violence and then someone who committed murder by the day is bizarre. What a strange personality he seems to be.

I also found it odd that Branion's second wife never thought any of his actions were suspicious at all (fleeing the country, his association with Idi Amin, etc).

Barbara D'Amato wrote a book about the case.

http://www.amazon.com/Doctor-Murder-Mystery-Barbara-DAmato/dp/0425156249/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337787414&sr=8-1

Has anyone read it? I've tossed around the idea of buying it, but haven't pulled the trigger.

Has anyone read it? I've tossed around the idea of buying it, but haven't pulled the trigger.

That's a very fitting colloquialism for this thread.

That's a very fitting colloquialism for this thread.

I was wondering if anyone would pick that up. Figures you would.

Found a very interesting archived Tribune article. It elaborates a lot more on the weapons Dr. Branion had, the way Donna was found, and some extremely intriguing aspects of the doctor's personal life and relationships:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-08-25/features/9103030674_1_prominent-chicago-police-cmdr-apartment

I've also purchased a copy of Barbara D'Amato's book about the case mentioned in the segment. I know she feels he is innocent, but I would like to see what she has to say. Maybe her arguments can convince me otherwise, but as of right now, I'm sure more than ever Dr. Branion probably had a hand in his wife's murder.

I also found it odd that Branion's second wife never thought any of his actions were suspicious at all (fleeing the country, his association with Idi Amin, etc).

Maybe she did think it was suspicous, I always suspected Shirley might have even known that Branion was behind his wife's death and merely didn't care. It may have even been flattering to her that Branion would kill his wife to be with her. But Branion was probably careful to keep her distant from it so as for her not to be implicated in anyway.

Now granted, thats just speculation, and I have no idea for sure that this was true. We need to make that clear so as not to slander Shirley, because we really don't know a lot about her.

But in the broadcast interview, she struck me as a person who wanted to gloss over the obvious flaws of her lover and paint a pretty picture over an obvious abomination and thats never a good sign. She claimed that Branion loved both Donna and her, but none of Branion's actions before or after the murder gave any indication that he cared for Donna at all. I do think its possible for people to have affairs and still love their spouse, though they typically quit and some point or another. But Branion's actions indicated a complete lack of feeling for Donna, and either Shirley had to be totally aware of Branion's flaws and just didn't care, or was completely blind and in denial.

Found a very interesting archived Tribune article. It elaborates a lot more on the weapons Dr. Branion had, the way Donna was found, and some extremely intriguing aspects of the doctor's personal life and relationships:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-08-25/features/9103030674_1_prominent-chicago-police-cmdr-apartment

I've also purchased a copy of Barbara D'Amato's book about the case mentioned in the segment. I know she feels he is innocent, but I would like to see what she has to say. Maybe her arguments can convince me otherwise, but as of right now, I'm sure more than ever Dr. Branion probably had a hand in his wife's murder.

That was an interesting read, good find! I find it odd that the first thing he mentioned to the officer was the lividity in her legs, it seems like such an odd thing to say in the heat of the moment. It's also interesting that Branion was somewhat of a ladies man, but his wife did not want to divorce him (for fear of losing her social status). Sounds to me like Branion wanted to live the life of a single playboy, but his wife was in the way. Could that have been why he had her killed? I think so. Almost the same motive (IMO) for the Jeffrey MacDonald murders.

EDIT: I also find it funny that UM made no mention of the ski trip Branion took the day after his wife was found murdered! And he denied owning the murder weapon when he in fact received it as a birthday present prior to his wife's murder. Anyone who believes Branion's innocence should definitely read that article.

That was an interesting read, good find! I find it odd that the first thing he mentioned to the officer was the lividity in her legs, it seems like such an odd thing to say in the heat of the moment. It's also interesting that Branion was somewhat of a ladies man, but his wife did not want to divorce him (for fear of losing her social status). Sounds to me like Branion wanted to live the life of a single playboy, but his wife was in the way. Could that have been why he had her killed? I think so. Almost the same motive (IMO) for the Jeffrey MacDonald murders.

EDIT: I also find it funny that UM made no mention of the ski trip Branion took the day after his wife was found murdered! And he denied owning the murder weapon when he in fact received it as a birthday present prior to his wife's murder. Anyone who believes Branion's innocence should definitely read that article.

Yes, I thought it was an extremely interesting read. I personally was amazed by Shirley sticking with Dr. Branion after he married her, divorced her, married a second g/f, divorced HER, and then married Shirley again! Shirley, girl, get out of that mess!

I totally get UM presenting the "impossibility argument", ie, Dr. Branion could not have personally murdered Donna because it would have been literally impossible given the time constraints. Cool, I'm down with that. Totally agree. But I absolutely do not discount the notion of someone--probably two people--being hired to commit the crime. Dr. Branion had a clear motive.

I also think UM--probably for timing reasons--glossed over that hired hitman theory. As much respect as I have for Tony D'Amato as an attorney, I have never really liked that part where he says if the prosecution "chose not" to present the hitman theory, then it's "legally irrelevant." Of course, that is totally true, but it doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, or isn't the truth. And as I've said, that little outburst of Dr. Branion's has always made me suspicious.

[QUOTE=MegtheEgg86]Yes, I thought it was an extremely interesting read. I personally was amazed by Shirley sticking with Dr. Branion after he married her, divorced her, married a second g/f, divorced HER, and then married Shirley again! Shirley, girl, get out of that mess!

Wth? I didnt know this!!! Wow Branion really was a dog!!! :eek:

doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, or isn't the truth[/I]. And as I've said, that little outburst of Dr. Branion's has always made me suspicious.

Personally, I think they didn't mention it for the same reason they didn't mention that Glen Consagra was a career criminal who had a sexual relationship with Mary Lou Holmes and had threatened to kill her; why they neglected to disclose that Thomas Drake heavily insured his wife before the hammer attack and lied to investigators about it; why they didn't tell us that Larry Race waited about 5 hours before beginning the search for his wife and was caught in conflicting stories about the reason for the delay. All of these facts point toward the guilt of the appealants and away from the pre-conceived conclusions the segment producers want viewers to reach.

I think Branion's appeal had a good hook - a black doctor who was Dr. Martin Luther King's personal physician (incidentally, Branion was a gynecologist, so it's a mystery to me why King would see him in the first place unless Branion changed practices or the actual patient was King's wife Coretta) is convicted of murder by a largely white jury during the height of the Civil Rights movement. New forensic evidence shows it is impossible for Branion to have been the triggerman, so who killed Branion's wife and can Branion prove his innocence in time to get his much needed heart transplant? You can't get much more sensational than that.

In reality, Branion was a man whose morals and ethics were, at best, extremely questionable. There were also many hinky circumstances surrounding the crime itself as well as Branion's actions both before and after that suggest he had a hand in the crime. His defenders put on one Hell of an awesome and engaging presentation that basically proves the prosecution's theory was flawed. The prosecutor offered a single lameduck rebuttal that was even edited in subsequent airings. But why confuse viewers with all these facts when the goal was to prove there had been a terrible miscarriage of justice and that the good doctor was innocent?

Just my $0.02.

Personally, I think they didn't mention it for the same reason they didn't mention that Glen Consagra was a career criminal who had a sexual relationship with Mary Lou Holmes and had threatened to kill her; why they neglected to disclose that Thomas Drake heavily insured his wife before the hammer attack and lied to investigators about it; why they didn't tell us that Larry Race waited about 5 hours before beginning the search for his wife and was caught in conflicting stories about the reason for the delay. All of these facts point toward the guilt of the appealants and away from the pre-conceived conclusions the segment producers want viewers to reach.

I think Branion's appeal had a good hook - a black doctor who was Dr. Martin Luther King's personal physician (incidentally, Branion was a gynecologist, so it's a mystery to me why King would see him in the first place unless Branion changed practices or the actual patient was King's wife Coretta) is convicted of murder by a largely white jury during the height of the Civil Rights movement. New forensic evidence shows it is impossible for Branion to have been the triggerman, so who killed Branion's wife and can Branion prove his innocence in time to get his much needed heart transplant? You can't get much more sensational than that.

In reality, Branion was a man whose morals and ethics were, at best, extremely questionable. There were also many hinky circumstances surrounding the crime itself as well as Branion's actions both before and after that suggest he had a hand in the crime. His defenders put on one Hell of an awesome and engaging presentation that basically proves the prosecution's theory was flawed. The prosecutor offered a single lameduck rebuttal that was even edited in subsequent airings. But why confuse viewers with all these facts when the goal was to prove there had been a terrible miscarriage of justice and that the good doctor was innocent?

Just my $0.02.
I love reading your theories/opinions!

I love reading your theories/opinions!

Thank you! I try very hard!! :)

All of the "Final Appeal" segements were, IMHO, edited to paint the defendant in the best light possible. They would either gloss over or completely ignore several facts that pointed to their guilt. Branion's case was no exception. I'm amazed that he actually had supporters since the evidence against him is pretty stacked.

Barbara D'Amato wrote a book about the case.

http://www.amazon.com/Doctor-Murder-Mystery-Barbara-DAmato/dp/0425156249/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337787414&sr=8-1

Has anyone read it? I've tossed around the idea of buying it, but haven't pulled the trigger.

I found a copy at my local library and I read most of it a few years ago, but never finished it. I was thinking about getting it out again to finish it. It was a very interesting book that gives insight in the John and Donna Branion's overall relationship (i.e. their courtship, the affairs, etc.) and gives a detailed account of John's actions on the day of the murder and the patients he treated that day. It also goes into great detail about his affair with Shirley.

In the segment, John D'Amato's statement about how the prosecution's choice not to present the hitman theory makes it legally irrelevant always struck me as odd. Granted, he's absolutely correct, but the way in which he said it didn't strike me as a ringing endorsement for Branion. He said it almost in passing and never actually refuted the theory outright, which is what most attorneys interviewed on UM for Final Appeal segments would do in similar situation.

The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to believe he hired someone to murder his wife. In the 1960s, divorce was considered much more scandalous than it is now, especially in well-to-do families such as the Branions. The fact that Donna tolerated John's repeated infidelities was actually not uncommon at the time. Women in affluent families who got divorced back then were often looked down upon as not being able "to keep a man".

Although she seemed very nice in her interview, I didn't think much of Shirley Branion (née Hudson). It's one thing if a man is cheating on his wife to be with you and you have no clue he's married. It's another thing to know he's married and basically keep seeing him under the wife's nose for six years straight. IIRC, Barbara D'Amato's book stated that Shirley (who was only about 20 and just out of nursing school) already knew he was married with a child (their son hadn't been born yet) when she started working for him and had no qualms about going along with his advances when he pursued her.

I finished the book over the weekend. Now I'm on the fence.

Let me say that the book was very engaging and I enjoyed it immensely. It is obvious that Dr. Branion's case was personally very important to Ms. D'Amato. She cared about him.

One thing the book went into but the segment did not is Dr. Branion's flight to Africa in 1971 until his apprehension in 1983. He didn't just take off to Uganda--he shuttled from Algeria, to South America (Brazil), back to Algeria, to Tanzania, to Sudan, to Uganda, to Kenya, to Botswana, and finally to Uganda for good. He was imprisoned twice for having funny documentation while in Sudan and Algeria. He suffered from on-going angina the entire duration knowing firsthand that adequate medical care was largely unavailable.

I guess I am trying to think about it in another way. Here is a man that will go to jail for passport fraud (something he undebatedly did), but will not go to jail for murdering his wife (something he claims he did not do). He is willing to continue living with what he knows to be coronary problems in a place that does not have the infrastructure to treat him well, but will not leave the continent for good treatment elsewhere. Multiple times it was mentioned that he just assumed he would die in Africa. He's willing to let go of his life, but not his so-called freedom--which isn't much freedom anyway, but it is not life in an American jail for the murder of his wife.

If the motivation was to be with Shirley, he didn't get a lot of time with her at all. Shirley did not join Dr. Branion until the early 1980s. In fact, they had lost touch for something close to a decade after he fled to Africa and married and soon divorced his third wife. When Shirley and John did get back together, they only had a short time before he was taken back to the U.S. to serve the 1968 sentence.

It just seems like a huge pain in the rear for pretty much nothing--at least not the reason I suspected, that is, wanting to live a life with Shirley without Donna. I don't know. All moral weaknesses and failings aside, it was incredibly difficult for Dr. Branion to remain outside the grasp of the U.S., and I don't know if a truly guilty man is willing to go through that much trouble to flee and subsequently hide out for a reason that didn't even really materialize in any real sense.

I guess one could point to Brad Bishop. But Mr. Bishop never even went to trial. He immediately took off. Dr. Branion stayed and truly believed he was going to be found innocent, throughout the whole thing. And there really is no evidence to suggest Dr. Branion hired anyone to kill Donna. He made no large withdrawals. There's no unusual contacts. There's no one running his or her mouth. That is why the prosecution did not present it, and instead continued with their theory that he killed her himself on the morning of December 22, 1967--which would have been impossible.

I'm not so sure now. I think he truly might have been completely innocent.

Meg,

Did the book provide any theories about who may have killed Donna Branion? Just curious.

I guess I am trying to think about it in another way. Here is a man that will go to jail for passport fraud (something he undebatedly did), but will not go to jail for murdering his wife (something he claims he did not do). He is willing to continue living with what he knows to be coronary problems in a place that does not have the infrastructure to treat him well, but will not leave the continent for good treatment elsewhere. Multiple times it was mentioned that he just assumed he would die in Africa. He's willing to let go of his life, but not his so-called freedom--which isn't much freedom anyway, but it is not life in an American jail for the murder of his wife.

I see this another way. I'm not sure how long he was incarcerated for passport fraud, but I'm sure it was a lot lighter of a sentence compared to the conviction he received for killing his wife. This is exactly why he fled the US, IMHO, was to escape jail for the rest of his life. If his freedom meant that much to him, he could and should have done everything he did to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was innocent but he did not. It's not like he didn't have the time, he was free on bail for three whole years after his conviction.

If the motivation was to be with Shirley, he didn't get a lot of time with her at all. Shirley did not join Dr. Branion until the early 1980s. In fact, they had lost touch for something close to a decade after he fled to Africa and married and soon divorced his third wife. When Shirley and John did get back together, they only had a short time before he was taken back to the U.S. to serve the 1968 sentence.

I don't think the motivation was to be with Shirley. I think Branion wanted to live the life of a playboy bachelor and his wife was holding him back. Especially if Branion wanted a divorce but his wife adamantly refused. I think Branion had his wife killed the same reason why Jeffrey MacDonald killed his wife and kids. They were in the way of the lifestyle he wanted to live.

Meg,

Did the book provide any theories about who may have killed Donna Branion? Just curious.

justin, I realize this is MONTHS late but I was searching for another post and the results brought up this thread. Ms. D'Amato mentioned towards the end of the book that a string of burglaries hit the Branions' neighborhood during December of 1967, and that it may be possible Donna's death was a break-in-turned-murder once the burglars realized someone was in the house.

I used to lean toward innocent, but the above article and many other comments in this thread have caused me to go on the fence (leaning toward guilt).


''I couldn't kill my childhood sweetheart..''but I will just go on a ski trip with another woman the day after she was found murdered even though I loved her? Shirley said he loved both women. The segment portrays him as being with both women but doesn't mention the numerous affairs. While adultery doesn't make one a murderer, what kind of heart does a person have when they go on a pleasure trip the day after their spouse is found dead? ESPECIALLY when you have two small, grieving children?!?! If this is true about the ski trip, I am very disheartened. Especially because if he did do it, he exposed his four-year-old son to the body. That reenactment in the beginning of the segment is so sad with him calling for his wife and the son calling for his mother. I really hope he was not involved, but his morals and principles sure seem suspect.

If somebody broke into your house and shot and killed your wife, wouldn't you feel afraid for your children, fearful violence could reach them, too? Wouldn't you be wanting to comfort them? Humans all grieve differently, of course, but a pleasure ski trip with another woman? I just have a hard time believing that. And if he is guilty, what dumb thing to do on top of being heartless. How is that going to make you appear? Not like a grieving husband.

I used to lean toward innocent, but the above article and many other comments in this thread have caused me to go on the fence (leaning toward guilt).


''I couldn't kill my childhood sweetheart..''but I will just go on a ski trip with another woman the day after she was found murdered even though I loved her? Shirley said he loved both women. The segment portrays him as being with both women but doesn't mention the numerous affairs. While adultery doesn't make one a murderer, what kind of heart does a person have when they go on a pleasure trip the day after their spouse is found dead? ESPECIALLY when you have two small, grieving children?!?! If this is true about the ski trip, I am very disheartened. Especially because if he did do it, he exposed his four-year-old son to the body. That reenactment in the beginning of the segment is so sad with him calling for his wife and the son calling for his mother. I really hope he was not involved, but his morals and principles sure seem suspect.

If somebody broke into your house and shot and killed your wife, wouldn't you feel afraid for your children, fearful violence could reach them, too? Wouldn't you be wanting to comfort them? Humans all grieve differently, of course, but a pleasure ski trip with another woman? I just have a hard time believing that. And if he is guilty, what dumb thing to do on top of being heartless. How is that going to make you appear? Not like a grieving husband.

Early news reports erroneously stated that Dr. Branion had gone off with Shirley to Colorado. What actually occurred, according to Branion and a number of people close to the family, is that Branion traveled to Colorado at the suggestion of his brother-in-law (Nelson Brown) that he and the children should get out of the house and spend Christmas with him and his wife Sonja in Vail. It appears later articles referenced the early reports. Both of Branion's children claim the trip occurred, but they spent it with their father, aunt, and uncle, and that Shirley was never there.

Early news reports erroneously stated that Dr. Branion had gone off with Shirley to Colorado. What actually occurred, according to Branion and a number of people close to the family, is that Branion traveled to Colorado at the suggestion of his brother-in-law (Nelson Brown) that he and the children should get out of the house and spend Christmas with him and his wife Sonja in Vail. It appears later articles referenced the early reports. Both of Branion's children claim the trip occurred, but they spent it with their father, aunt, and uncle, and that Shirley was never there.
Oh thank goodness. One of the articles suggested it was a pleasure trip with another woman (not even Shirley!) so that REALLY troubled me. If it was with his children and he was still looking after them, then that makes sense then. Getting out of the area definitely makes sense.

Some things from probably the first or second of John Branion's appeals that jumped out at me:

http://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1970/41622-6.html

1. The time was then about 11:30 A.M. Mrs. Kentra stated that 15 or 20 minutes after she heard these sounds, she observed *72 the defendant, Dr. John M. Branion, Jr., come out of his apartment onto the back porch, at which time he yelled for "Helen". Just prior to Dr. Banion's coming out to the porch, Mrs. Kentra saw the defendant's face and he did not appear to be agitated.

That's concerning.


2. But probably the most telling evidence was that the murder was committed with a rare Walther PPK gun like one proved to have been in the possession of defendant earlier that year; and the fact that the bullets found in and around the body could only have come from a Walther PPK. Exactly four bullets were found in and around the body, and when the police found, a month later, a box of .380 caliber bullets designed to hold 25 bullets, with exactly four missing, the evidence was convincing. When the police asked the doctor if he had any .380 caliber guns, he produced only a Hi Standard .380, and did not mention the Walther PPK, which has never been found. This evidence was not explained by the defense.

I initially balked at the notion of a Walther PPK being a "rare" weapon. I learned to shoot with a Walther PPK/S and thought many of the PP models somewhat common. I did a bit more digging on it, however, and I never realized the Walther PPK was not being manufactured domestically at the time Branion received it as a gift in February 1967; it had to be imported from Germany. (In fact, just a year after Donna's murder, the Walther PPK did not meet the criteria--by one point--for importation into the U.S. under the Gun Control Act of 1968--and that's how we got the PPK/S.) Being a foreign handgun that had to have been specifically ordered into the U.S. at the time, I don't think this bodes well for Dr. Branion's claims of innocence. Joe Robber probably wouldn't have carried a Walther PPK in 1967, nor would he break into a home expecting to find a weapon--let alone a "rare" handgun most American gunowners at the time wouldn't be very familiar with--to use in the commission of his crime, either (despite what Jeff MacDonald would probably have to say about icepicks :rolleyes:).



Now, this decision--and all of the primary court documents I have read--state that Branion was asked if he owned any weapon capable of firing .380 ammunition. So he hands over a Hi Standard .380 pistol, and that's that until the Walther PPK comes up (a Walther PPK fires .380 ACP ammunition).

UM, in the segment, has it another way: RS narrates that Branion was asked if he owned any weapon capable of firing 9mm ammunition, and that he handed over a "Luger pistol".

So, who has it right?

Now, .380 ACP ammunition is also sometimes referred to as 9 mm short. It's the exact same thing. So, to be asked if you have a weapon capable of firing 9 mm rounds and then to hand over a .380 pistol generally makes sense. Being that a Walther PPK also fires .380 ACP, if you had it in your possession and knew about it, you would also hand that weapon over as well.

What would absolutely NOT make sense is to be asked if you have a weapon capable of firing .380 rounds and then hand over a Luger pistol. It fires 9 mm Luger rounds, which is a completely different cartridge than 9 mm short/.380 ACP.

However, let us assume for the time being that Branion was asked for a weapon capable of firing 9 mm ammunition, as UM claims. He hands them a Luger, which does fire a TYPE of 9 mm ammunition, but is incapable of firing the type of 9 mm ammunition used to kill Donna (and which fact he is pretty likely to be completely aware of, being "an avid gun collector"). If we imagine this story is true, we see clearly what it might illustrate: Dr. Branion hadn't a single clue what kind of ammunition was used to kill his wife, much less that it was .380 ACP/9 mm short ammunition. He's asked for "nine milimeter", he gives them a Luger firing 9 mm Luger ammo. Completely and totally logical. Most people who own firearms would probably do the same thing, even if they also owned weapons capable of firing .380 ACP.

In other words, it makes him look oblivious. It makes him look innocent.



Again, however, the state of Illinois repeatedly asserts he was asked for a weapon capable of firing .380 ammunition, and that he handed them a Hi Standard .380 pistol:

The evidence also showed that when asked by Detective Moyle if he owned any weapon capable of firing .380 ammunition, the defendant said he had only one and gave the police a .380 Hi Standard. He made no mention of a Walther PPK. He also told the police that nothing was missing from his apartment. The murder weapon was never found. The evidence further showed that in February, 1967, the defendant received a Walther PPK from a friend, William Hooks, as a belated birthday present along with a brochure, a manufacturer's target, and an extra clip. During the trial, evidence was introduced that on January 22, 1968, Detective Boyle and his partner, armed with a search warrant, searched the home of the defendant at 5054 South Woodlawn and found a brochure for a Walther PPK, an extra clip and a manufacturer's target which bore the number 188274, the same number as the gun given to the defendant by his friend as a present. These items were found in a cabinet which had been locked on the day of the crime.


It should be noted that the fact that exact same cartridge and brand of ammunition used to kill Donna was found in the Branion home--and that the exact number of rounds used in her murder were missing from that brand-new box (there were 21 rounds counted out of a 25-round box) has never once been explained by the defense.

Pretty sure I'm going the other way on this case now.

More later.

1. The time was then about 11:30 A.M. Mrs. Kentra stated that 15 or 20 minutes after she heard these sounds, she observed *72 the defendant, Dr. John M. Branion, Jr., come out of his apartment onto the back porch, at which time he yelled for "Helen". Just prior to Dr. Banion's coming out to the porch, Mrs. Kentra saw the defendant's face and he did not appear to be agitated.

That's concerning.

Was this after he arrived at the residence and discovered his wife's body?

That was a good find! Are you saying that you tend to believe he's guilty now? Because the evidence against him, IMO, has always been pretty damning.

Was this after he arrived at the residence and discovered his wife's body?

That was a good find! Are you saying that you tend to believe he's guilty now? Because the evidence against him, IMO, has always been pretty damning.

Yes, this was immediately after he discovered Donna.

And yep, I'm starting to think he's guilty.

Wow, Branion called his friend at 10 and 11 p.m. the night before the murder to make sure she was still on for lunch...this was also the first time Branion had ever phoned her and invited her out to anything, definitely screams guilty to me. He was trying to make sure he'd have an alibi, IMO, while someone he hired killed his wife.

-For some bizarre reason, the jury was not allowed to take notes.

I forgot about that. That is very strange indeed. Although it could work for both the defense and the prosecution, depending on which parts the jury paid most attention to.

According to an appeal on the Branion case states that he told police nothing was missing from his apartment at the time his wife was murdered. Plus his brand new ammunition box, the same ammo used to murder his wife, was coincidentally missing 4 rounds...the same amount of rounds used in his wife's murder.

-fingernail scrapings on Donna's hands were collected, but never analyzed and were eventually lost.

As I stated above, there was obviously a struggle in the apartment as Donna had also been strangled and there was furniture and items in disarray. Many people observed John in the hours immediately after the crimes, and nobody states that he had any cuts, bruises or anything else that would indicate he was involved in a struggle.

-Some have said that John appeared angry in the segment when it was suggested he hired a hit man. I don't typically like to make "he was incapable of murder because of his personality arguments", but since the issue was raised, I'll state that John was, by accounts, a kind and generous man who contributed to charity and became a doctor because he liked helping people. To that extent, when he was in Africa, he spent the entire time trying to find work as a doctor because he liked helping people, even as his own health was failing.

I think, in order to get an accurate assessment of Branion's guilt or innocence, one has to look at the possibility that someone else could have committed these crimes. The UM segment spends little if any time examining the intruder theory. (when you think about it, this case bares some resemblances to the JonBenet Ramsey case). This was Chicago, and any city as big as that is going to have its share of (random) crime. There had been a string of similar type crimes in the area at the time. And this was a few days before Christmas, so robbers/burglars are going to figure that a residence (particularly in an affluent area, which this was) will be well stocked with gifts and what not.

Adding on to that, another theory put forward was that Donna had opened the door expecting a delivery man, or the intruder(s) had posed as delivery men. Perhaps Donna was expecting a delivery of a gift that had been ordered, or perhaps she was expecting food to be delivered. (Back in those days, it was common for big city dwellers to have groceries delivered as a lot of them didn't own a car, and it was just easier. I don't know for sure, but I don't think this is common that much anymore.)

Donna's injuries, as described in the book, sound horrific and numerous. As I stated earlier, she wasn't just shot once or a few times, she was shot many times, strangled, and from the sounds of it, beaten and tortured as well. I think it takes a particularly evil person to do this, a few days before Christmas, and I'm not convinced John Branion was that person.

Donna's injuries, as described in the book, sound horrific and numerous. As I stated earlier, she wasn't just shot once or a few times, she was shot many times, strangled, and from the sounds of it, beaten and tortured as well. I think it takes a particularly evil person to do this, a few days before Christmas, and I'm not convinced John Branion was that person.

Testimony at Branion's trial said that her only injuries were four gunshot wounds:

"It was further established, through the testimony of Dr. John Belmonte, that Mrs. Branion died as a result of four gunshot wounds to the head, neck and shoulder. Three pellets were found under the body and one found in her arm. Four expended cartridge casings were found next to the body."

There was also testimony from Belmonte that Branion's wife was strangled. I also found this from another one of his appeals:

"Time can be squeezed out of Branion's account quite easily. Suppose the clock at the Hospital was a few minutes fast (digital watches were rare in 1967)--or suppose Dr. Branion entered the time on patients' records just a little inaccurately. He could have started his journey at 11:30 if not a few minutes earlier. Suppose he was not punctilious about finding legal parking spaces. Then the time for the whole trip is only a minute or two longer than the minimum driving time: at the legal speed, six minutes. Add one minute to grab Joby and one minute to meet Maxine Brown and you still have only 8 minutes. If Branion started a little before 11:30, there is enough time left over to kill someone--even to detour home first, as the prosecution contended. As for the bruises: Branion, a physician, knew how to inflict this kind of injury in minimum time. The jury could have concluded that Branion strangled his wife with a cord briefly at 11:40 and then shot her, and that bruises continued forming until the police arrived at noon. If Branion killed his wife, he planned to kill her; the assumption of planning helps to evaluate the time sequence. A physician planning murder would have inflicted a kind of injury that looks like it took longer to cause than it did. He would have fudged the time records at the Hospital, exceeded the speed limit and parked illegally to save minutes; he would have whisked Joby out of school and barely nodded at Maxine Brown. He would not have come to a full stop at stop signs. The entire sequence can be thrown off on the assumption of planning, an assumption the jury was entitled to indulge."

Not to mention Branion's trial was a year after his wife's murder. People wouldn't be that keen to remember exact times. Of course, there's always the possibility that he had hired someone to off his wife, in which the timeline of his travels would be meaningless other than him trying to stall until the job was done.

That's a lot of hypotheticals. There is a section in the back of the book devoted to the timelines, so I'll probably address this in greater detail later.

Branion greeted an acquaintance outside his office at 11:30. This was confirmed. So he's placed there as late as 11:30. The police timed the drive from his office to his apartment to Joby's school. They said it could be done in "as little as 6 minutes, but as late as 12 minutes", which is a pretty huge variance. The D'Amatos also made the trip many times, and got 11-12 minutes each time. So the 6 minutes is undoubtedly an outlier, in most cases it will be 11-12 minutes (and you also have to consider the police didn't factor in such things as snow, traffic, allotment for the time it takes to get inside the various buildings and back out to the car, that John had to walk slower when Joby was accompanying him, etc). But again, I'll probably address the timelines in more detail later.

John was in shock, confusion and grief in the hours immediately after discovering Donna dead. If he initially said that nothing was missing from the house, he may have been confused. Or an even more likely scenario was that he didn't do an examination of the apartment to see if every single item that should be in it was. (that was probably the last thing on his mind, given the circumstances.) What likely happened was that the police asked John if he noticed if anything was missing, to which he replied no because he didn't spot anything that was obviously missing (the gun, I believe all of them were kept in a closet, or the cash which was hidden in the dresser.) The segment depicts that John had kept the guns hidden (obvious since there were children in the house) so its absence wouldn't have been immediately noticeable. It's not as noticeable as, say, a t.v. that's missing.

One other thing I wanted to bring up right now was that John voluntarily agreed to submit to a nitrate test. The police were unable to conduct one, but John had no way of knowing that. Now I ask, what person that recently fired a gun and discovered his wife dead, will not only voluntarily submit to a nitrate test, but also suggest it?

One other thing I wanted to bring up right now was that John voluntarily agreed to submit to a nitrate test. The police were unable to conduct one, but John had no way of knowing that. Now I ask, what person that recently fired a gun and discovered his wife dead, will not only voluntarily submit to a nitrate test, but also suggest it?

This, IMO, lends more credence to the hired hit theory. If guilty, he knew he would fail a polygraph. IIRC, the segment mentions the police want him to take a polygraph and he refuses but says he'll take a nitrate test. Obviously, if he hired someone to kill his wife, he would have no residue from a gun on his hand. So he would know beforehand that he could pass that, hoping that the police would be satisfied enough that he wasn't the killer.

This, IMO, lends more credence to the hired hit theory. If guilty, he knew he would fail a polygraph. IIRC, the segment mentions the police want him to take a polygraph and he refuses but says he'll take a nitrate test. Obviously, if he hired someone to kill his wife, he would have no residue from a gun on his hand. So he would know beforehand that he could pass that, hoping that the police would be satisfied enough that he wasn't the killer.

The thing is though, the whole subject of him hiring a hit man was never brought up in the trial. The jury thought that not only did he murder Donna, but he actually pulled the trigger.

I just want to reiterate my confusion on the question investigators asked about Dr. Branion's weapons.

UM states that he was asked if any weapon in his collection was capable of firing 9mm ammunition.

The State says he was asked if any weapon in the collection was capable of firing .380 ACP ammunition. .380 ACP is also sometimes called "9mm short" or "9mm kurz".

UM states Branion handed investigators a Luger pistol, which fires 9mm Luger ammunition. 9mm Luger is NOT the same thing as 9mm short (.380 ACP) ammunition. A Luger pistol is incapable of firing the rounds used in a Walther PPK, as again it fires 9mm Luger and the PPK fires 9mm short (also called .380 ACP).

Either someone has the story screwed up, is leaving out details, or is outrightly fabricating them. But I know this almost certainly: if asked for a weapon capable of firing .380 ACP, Dr. Branion NEVER would've produced a Luger pistol.

If I didn't know any better, I would say the State might be rewriting history for its own benefit.

The hit man theory holds no water in my opinion. If John Branion would have hired a hit man, he would have arranged it so that during the entire length of the murder, he would have placed himself at his clinic or somewhere else where his alibi could be substantiated. He certainly wouldn't have left open the possibility that he could have made it to the apartment and killed his wife. He also would have arranged it so that the apartment had clearly been robbed. Neither of those things happened. He also wouldn't have arranged it so that the bullets used to kill Donna were taken from his box of ammunition.

I also want to draw attention to something John said in the UM interview, which can be easily missed. (in fact, I didn't notice it until now.): "When I walked in, all of the lights were on and two t.v.'s were turned on." I think this is important for a couple of reasons: 1) The Branion apartment was quite large and it would have taken some time to do this. It can be safely assumed Donna wouldn't have had all the lights on and two t.v.'s on, so whoever killed her must have done this. The police didn't include the time it would have taken for John to turn all the lights on and the t.v.'s on when they timed the route. (not to mention other things).

2) All of the lights being turned is indicative of a stranger being in the apartment. John and Donna were familiar with the apartment and wouldn't have needed to turn all of the lights on in broad daylight. I'm thinking the intruder(s) turned all of the lights on because a) they were looking for something(s) to steal, b) they didn't want to leave any evidence behind, or c) a combination of those two things.

I'm thinking the t.v.'s were on to muffle the sound of the gun shots/struggle.

The thing is though, the whole subject of him hiring a hit man was never brought up in the trial. The jury thought that not only did he murder Donna, but he actually pulled the trigger.

IIRC, this was touched upon in the UM segment. The state knew the evidence was weak against the hitman theory, so the best they had was to try him as the actual murderer.

And if you've ever seen the NBC version of this segment, Branion becomes extremely agitated when this is brought up to him. They edit this out of the Lifetime reruns for some reason.

And for a possible "payoff" to the hitman/men, the gun was never found. Perhaps the gun being pawned off was payment enough to whoever he hired to kill his wife.

I just want to reiterate my confusion on the question investigators asked about Dr. Branion's weapons.

UM states that he was asked if any weapon in his collection was capable of firing 9mm ammunition.

The State says he was asked if any weapon in the collection was capable of firing .380 ACP ammunition. .380 ACP is also sometimes called "9mm short" or "9mm kurz".

UM states Branion handed investigators a Luger pistol, which fires 9mm Luger ammunition. 9mm Luger is NOT the same thing as 9mm short (.380 ACP) ammunition. A Luger pistol is incapable of firing the rounds used in a Walther PPK, as again it fires 9mm Luger and the PPK fires 9mm short (also called .380 ACP).

Either someone has the story screwed up, is leaving out details, or is outrightly fabricating them. But I know this almost certainly: if asked for a weapon capable of firing .380 ACP, Dr. Branion NEVER would've produced a Luger pistol.

If I didn't know any better, I would say the State might be rewriting history for its own benefit.

I would tend to think UM screwed this information up. The segment was filmed almost 20 years after his trial. Perhaps UM was going off of information that Branion himself (or his defense team) had claimed.

And if you've ever seen the NBC version of this segment, Branion becomes extremely agitated when this is brought up to him. They edit this out of the Lifetime reruns for some reason.

Yes, I have the NBC version. Why wouldn't he be agitated? He clearly didn't hire a hit man. As I stated the other day, if Branion hired a hit man, he would have arranged it so that the hit man was doing the deed while Branion was at work and his accounts could be backed up by numerous people, and have the scene set so that it would look like a robbery and/or sexual assault took place, to throw investigators off. Branion wouldn't have arranged it so that he was driving about and near his apartment while all this is going on.

I don't think it's indicative of guilt at all.

Yes, I have the NBC version. Why wouldn't he be agitated? He clearly didn't hire a hit man. As I stated the other day, if Branion hired a hit man, he would have arranged it so that the hit man was doing the deed while Branion was at work and his accounts could be backed up by numerous people, and have the scene set so that it would look like a robbery and/or sexual assault took place, to throw investigators off. Branion wouldn't have arranged it so that he was driving about and near his apartment while all this is going on.

I don't think it's indicative of guilt at all.

Obviously if he's innocent he has every right to be agitated. But, and this is just my little theory alone here, I think Branion planned on being away during the time his wife was being murdered. Remember he called a friend at 10 or 11 o'clock the night before his wife's murder to make sure that their lunch date was still on? I think this is Branion's planned alibi for the time of his wife's death. I think he planned on dining with his friend, then going to pick up his son, and then go home to "discover" his wife. This would put him even further away from the crime scene during the time of her murder, and would give him even more witnesses to his alibi. But his lunch date cancelled on him at the last minute, so he had to alter his plans. Which is why he went to pick up his son, IMO. He not only wanted to create more of a time difference between the time he left work to the time he discovered his wife's body, but he also wanted someone with him when he discovered it. And no, I don't think he was sick enough to want to expose his son to his dead mother, I just think in his mind it would lend more credence to his story that he was away from the house when his wife was murdered.

mmm, not necessarily. I think it would have been wiser for Branion to be at the hospital while all of it was going on, if he planned for someone else to do her in. The people at the hospital all knew Branion and there would have also been time logs, things of that nature. It's a lot better for him than to gamble on some random person spotting him at a restaurant, if it was even further away. I think it would have left too much for chance.

And I should point out that Branion was a very smart man who spoke 4 languages and got through medical school. I could see other people making dumb mistakes, but not him.

mmm, not necessarily. I think it would have been wiser for Branion to be at the hospital while all of it was going on, if he planned for someone else to do her in. The people at the hospital all knew Branion and there would have also been time logs, things of that nature. It's a lot better for him than to gamble on some random person spotting him at a restaurant, if it was even further away. I think it would have left too much for chance.

That is a good point, and one I've wondered about. Since I believe he's guilty, I wonder why he didn't simply just stay at the hospital for a longer period of time, until he knew his wife was murdered?

EDIT: Maybe I found the answer. I was incorrect in stating prior that Branion's lunch date was cancelled the night before his wife's murder. It was actually cancelled shortly before the discovery of her body! According to one of his appeals, the police log for the call to report Donna's murder was 11:57 a.m. Branion claims that he picked his son up at 11:30 a.m., and that his son was waiting outside in a parking lot at the time. But a lady who worked at his son's school contradicted him on this point: "Mrs. Joyce Kelly, an assistant teacher at the club, testified that she distinctly remembered seeing the defendant enter the Club between 11:45 and 11:50 A.M. and that his son was not outside but rather in the all-purpose room waiting for his father. She also remembered seeing the defendant help his son on with his jacket." This little tidbit is important, because she made a note in her mind to remember Branion helping his son with his jacket, his son waiting for him in a utility room, etc. which would seem to indicate she would also be a better witness with regards to the exact time Branion arrived to pick him up.

And regarding the lunch date: "Dr. Branion told the police that after he picked up his son he drove to 1369 East 53rd Street to pick up Maxine Brown who was to have lunch with Branion and his wife. Mrs. Brown testified that the defendant had called her between 10:00 and 11:00 P.M. the previous night to make the luncheon engagement and that this was the first time he had ever called her to have lunch since the time she had begun working in September of 1967. Mrs. Brown also stated that when he stopped for her she could not keep the luncheon engagement because of a business commitment and that the defendant and his son then left."

I had forgot that Branion had planned on dining with the friend with is wife as well. This, IMO, makes the planned hit theory even more likely. He was going to use the friend as someone to "discover" the body with, so he could have an even clearer picture of his timeline of an alibi. Think about it: Branion leaves the hospital shortly after 11:30 a.m., because he claims to have seen an emergency patient shortly before leaving (I don't think this patient was logged with a time, the last recorded patient was at 11:28 a.m.) he says that he could not have reached his car earlier than 11:34 a.m. So this would in turn fit with the timeline that the teacher from Branion's son's school said...Branion arrived roughly around 11:45 a.m. to pick him up. From there, Branion goes to meet his friend to pick her up, but she declines and he has no choice but to go immediately home after. If he hired someone to kill his wife, he would have to know the time that it was planned to be carried out. And when Branion's friend cancelled their lunch plans, he really had no choice but to go home at that point because any amount of time not accounted for would cast suspicion his way. Now Branion COULD have said he took his son for ice cream or shopping (after his friend cancelled on him) for the sake of establishing even more time away from his residence...but he knew even that would come under scrutiny. He would have been asked why he didn't return home to inform his wife that their lunch plans were cancelled, or even called home to tell her, and if he did say he called and spoke to her, he knew the police/investigators would have established a time of death making a phone call an impossibility. Every other action of his was neatly recorded and noted by people that morning (almost like Stephen Geri going around making sure people saw him and noted the time), and it's almost too coincidental that he not only called his friend up the night before to make sure their lunch plans were still on. So I don't think Branion was stupid at all. I think his plan was near perfect. The only problem was he chose to set up lunch plans with someone whom he hadn't gone out with for five months, and who did so late the night before his wife was murdered. And the fact that the friend cancelled on him.

I'm not sure how you get 5 months. Maxine Brown and John Branion met in September of 1967 and Donna was killed in December of 1967, so that's 3 months. I don't know the history behind their friendship, so it's not suspicious at all that this was their first outing.

Something huge that wasn't reported in the segment (I think a poster mentioned this awhile back) was that the judge who handled the trial was later found out to be corrupt. It was stated that after the jury reached their verdict, the judge had suggested he was going to set aside the jury's verdict if Branion would bribe him $10,000. As it turns out, the judge just simply let Branion flee the country (which was a large part of Branion's decision to go to Africa).

I'm not sure how much race played a factor in things, although it does seem only having 1 black juror out of 12 is wrong (is only 1 out of every 12 Chicago residents black?). The police zeroed in on John and didn't investigate any other suspects.

Personally, I think the trial stunk.

I'm not sure how you get 5 months. Maxine Brown and John Branion met in September of 1967 and Donna was killed in December of 1967, so that's 3 months. I don't know the history behind their friendship, so it's not suspicious at all that this was their first outing.

I was off by a month, I have no idea where I came up with 5. According to her trial testimony Branion did not ask her out to lunch "since she started working" in September of 67. Now I don't think she was working for Branion because he wouldn't need to leave the hospital to pick her up, I think she had dined with the Branion's on previous occasions (prior to September), but since she began to work, Branion never once took her out or even asked her. I'm guessing it was due to her being at work that she wouldn't be able to dine out at lunch with them, which makes his request even more odd, IMO.

Something huge that wasn't reported in the segment (I think a poster mentioned this awhile back) was that the judge who handled the trial was later found out to be corrupt. It was stated that after the jury reached their verdict, the judge had suggested he was going to set aside the jury's verdict if Branion would bribe him $10,000. As it turns out, the judge just simply let Branion flee the country (which was a large part of Branion's decision to go to Africa).

That's weird. Are you saying Branion bribed the judge? Because the UM segment states that Branion remained free for 3 years after the verdict (on bond) to exhaust his appeals.

I'm not sure how much race played a factor in things, although it does seem only having 1 black juror out of 12 is wrong (is only 1 out of every 12 Chicago residents black?). The police zeroed in on John and didn't investigate any other suspects.

Another poster had previously posted on here that the area Branion lived in was of a wealthy background, with little to no crime, and ethnic diversity. I doubt race had anything to do with this trial. Now had Branion been accused of killing a white lady, you could make that argument, but I just don't see how it applies to this case at all.

-The hit man theory was investigated. They could not find any evidence from John's friends or acquaintances that he was looking for a hit man. There was no large withdrawal from his bank accounts.

-I always thought the suggested motive was pretty weak. Yes, John had an affair, but Donna had known about it for years. By accounts, the Branion household was happy with no history of violence. Financial motives can be discounted as John actually LOST money by Donna's death: when she died, he lost her future inheritance of the Brown fortune. As John said, why wouldn't he have just gotten a divorce?

-NONE of the 20 or so alibi witnesses were called to testify at the trial.

-The D'Amatos hired an expert to travel and time the routes. (earlier, I had stated that the police and the D'Amatos each did this several times themselves, with the police getting between 6-12 minutes, and the D'Amatos 11-12 minutes each time.) The expert got times ranging from 10 minutes and 42 seconds, to 13 minutes and and 42 seconds. In July, with no snow or holiday traffic. Additionally, the D'Amatos asked the expert to come up with a minimum time the distance could be traveled by car. He got 7 minutes and 5 seconds, over a minute more than the police's alleged shortest time (and the expert calculated his shortest possible time with all lights being green: the odds Branion would have got that are 1:512)

-The D'Amatos were met with a lot of resistance when they tried to research. They had repeatedly asked the Illinois Supreme Court for a copy of the trial, which was repeatedly denied them, even when they tried to invoke the Freedom of Information Act (they were told that by the police that despite that law, they just don't give out that information to anybody) and also got rude with the D'Amatos about it. They also tried to have the autopsy analyzed, but the autopsy was so vague that nobody would do it.

-there were at least 25 instances of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel

-The prosecutor asked the jury to convict Branion to "send a message to punks on the street", which can be viewed as an appeal to prejudice.

-The judge and the prosecutor had an 'ex parte communication', which is forbidden. This is a discussion between the judge and the prosecutor without the defense lawyer being present. It was at this time, prosecutor Pat Tuite believed that Judge Holzer was seeking a bribe from Branion's side, and that Holzer would have sided with Branion if he received it.

-The hit man theory was investigated. They could not find any evidence from John's friends or acquaintances that he was looking for a hit man. There was no large withdrawal from his bank accounts.

Branion's PPK was never found. Assuming that these were a rare deal back in the 60's, they would probably get someone a hefty sum of money if it were sold or pawned. This could have been the payment for the hit.

-I always thought the suggested motive was pretty weak. Yes, John had an affair, but Donna had known about it for years. By accounts, the Branion household was happy with no history of violence. Financial motives can be discounted as John actually LOST money by Donna's death: when she died, he lost her future inheritance of the Brown fortune. As John said, why wouldn't he have just gotten a divorce?

According to a news article, despite Branion's numerous affairs, Donna didn't want to get divorced because she feared it would hurt her social status.

-NONE of the 20 or so alibi witnesses were called to testify at the trial.

I thought the people at the school did testify as to what time Branion picked his son up? And wasn't there testimony from people at the hospital as well? And if there were other alibi witnesses, wouldn't this be on Branion's defense to call them to testify?

-The D'Amatos hired an expert to travel and time the routes. (earlier, I had stated that the police and the D'Amatos each did this several times themselves, with the police getting between 6-12 minutes, and the D'Amatos 11-12 minutes each time.) The expert got times ranging from 10 minutes and 42 seconds, to 13 minutes and and 42 seconds. In July, with no snow or holiday traffic. Additionally, the D'Amatos asked the expert to come up with a minimum time the distance could be traveled by car. He got 7 minutes and 5 seconds, over a minute more than the police's alleged shortest time (and the expert calculated his shortest possible time with all lights being green: the odds Branion would have got that are 1:512)

I agree that the timetable is impossible for Branion to have murdered his wife.

-The prosecutor asked the jury to convict Branion to "send a message to punks on the street", which can be viewed as an appeal to prejudice.

This is very subjective, IMO. I tend to think the prosecutor was saying basically if you convict this well off wealthy doctor this will send a message to the "punks" on the street that you'll get what's coming to you too.

-The judge and the prosecutor had an 'ex parte communication', which is forbidden. This is a discussion between the judge and the prosecutor without the defense lawyer being present. It was at this time, prosecutor Pat Tuite believed that Judge Holzer was seeking a bribe from Branion's side, and that Holzer would have sided with Branion if he received it.

I'm confused on this part. How did the prosecutor come to think that the judge wanted a bribe from Branion's side?

Branion's PPK was never found. Assuming that these were a rare deal back in the 60's, they would probably get someone a hefty sum of money if it were sold or pawned. This could have been the payment for the hit?

As I stated earlier, some had described the PPK as "very rare" but this was not true. They had recently saw a spike in popularity due to, among other things, being the type of gun used in the James Bond movies. Admittedly, I don't know much about guns, and I also don't know anything about hiring a hit man, but from what I've seen on true crime shows, hit man are usually very expensive, running into many thousands of dollars, if not more. It seems unlikely that a person would risk going to prison for the rest of their life for a gun.

As I stated earlier, some had described the PPK as "very rare" but this was not true. They had recently saw a spike in popularity due to, among other things, being the type of gun used in the James Bond movies. Admittedly, I don't know much about guns, and I also don't know anything about hiring a hit man, but from what I've seen on true crime shows, hit man are usually very expensive, running into many thousands of dollars, if not more. It seems unlikely that a person would risk going to prison for the rest of their life for a gun.

True. But TK Hardy was killed by this forum's favorite bumpkin hitman, Elmo Florence, for only a small amount of money. Branion could have found a hitman relatively cheap, just as John Mooney did.

EDIT: I understand that the hitman theory is pure conjecture without any evidence to back it up outside of some speculation. But then again, does a "random intruder" scenario make any more sense? I think it makes less sense. According to testimony at Branion's trial, his Walther PPK was a gift from a friend earlier in 1967. Branion got the gun, a brochure about the gun, a target, and a extra clip for the gun. Police had obtained a search warrant a month after Donna's murder. In Branion's residence they found, "a brochure for a Walther PPK, an extra clip and a manufacturer's target which bore the number 188274, the same number as the gun given to the defendant by his friend as a present. These items were found in a cabinet which had been locked on the day of the crime." Now doesn't this come off as extremely odd? The one thing that wasn't locked in this cabinet on the day of Donna's murder was the gun used to kill her? How would these unknown assailants know for one the location of the gun, and that it wouldn't be locked in the cabinet on the date of her death? It gets worse for Branion. "A month later in their investigation, armed with a search warrant, the police officers also recovered from a shelf in a closet in the den of the apartment a paper bag containing two boxes of Geco brand .380 caliber ammunition. One full box contained 25 shells. The other box for 25 had only 21 shells in it. Four shells were missing." This cannot be a mere coincidence. The amount of shells used in Donna's murder are also the same number of shells missing from Branion's ammo box? These "intruders" broke into a house, unarmed, and luckily found a gun that was not locked up in a cabinet (when it usually was), and then also luckily found ammunition to use for this gun. And it's not like the ammunition was out in plain sight. Investigators found the ammunition in a closet in a den, in a different area than the gun was located. It just defies logic that a random intruder would be this lucky to not only strike on a date where Branion left his gun unlocked but also found the location of the ammunition that would work in a PPK. There's only two people who would know beforehand about these things: Branion and possibly his wife.

-It's unlikely that Donna was shot only 4 times. She had 13 gunshot wounds on her body. Even if you re-watch the segment, it depicts the shooter shooting 6 or 7 shots. So if only 4 bullets are missing, then a second gun was used.

-My theory is that Donna was the one who actually grabbed the PPK. I think she struggled with an assailant, managed to break free for a short period of time and grabbed it and also went for ammo. Unfortunately, I think the attacker caught up with her. That would explain why the gun was out of the locked cabinet. I have no idea where the key was kept. Or, perhaps John intentionally left that one gun out in case of an emergency and someone needed to grab it quick.

Some stuff:

1. When Dr. Branion received the PPK from Mr. Hooks in February 1967, that weapon had to be specially ordered and imported into the United States from Germany. The very next year, it was actually banned from importation under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the law did of course eventually change). There are many PPKs in the U.S. today, but it doesn't seem that it could have been a very common handgun given these sets of circumstances around the time of the murder. That doesn't look good for Branion.

2. What also doesn't look good for Dr. Branion is the fact that not only the exact caliber, but exact brand of ammunition used to kill Donna was found in the home (with a number of rounds missing from the box that exactly matched the number found in her body, as Cars recently mentioned).

3. I still don't know who's telling the truth here: UM says Branion handed over a Luger; Illinois says he handed over a Hi Standard .380. Both might have a vested interest in bending the story to suit their case, so I'm leaving that one alone for now.

4. Re: Donna grabbing the PPK--this theory presupposes she actually knew how to load, ****, and fire the handgun. I realize this comes from a single source, but Dr. Branion was obviously interviewed extensively for the book, and according to his statements, this seems highly unlikely. Donna was a wealthy, urban, traditionalist homemaker who came of age in the 1940s. She probably wasn't too handy with a firearm, if I may extrapolate. Branion also said she never really liked going out on his "adventures" outside the city into Indiana that included horseback riding, camping, and target shooting (which was one reason, he claimed, they grew apart and he pursued other women).

ETA: Apparently Sitcoms Online recognizes my use of c*ck only in the vulgar sense. Obviously, that wasn't my meaning.

Testimony at Branion's trial has said there were only 4 gunshot wounds to Donna's head and neck area. Police found four cartridge casings near her body, 3 spent shells, and then the fourth and final spent shell was found in Donna's body during her autopsy. Another interesting tidbit from Branion's trial that I had glossed over: Branion's house was protected by a "special burglar-proof lock". Without any signs of forced entry, how did these intruders get into the house? They obviously did not have a gun before entering the apartment, so it's not like they could have forced their way in.

Ever since I first watched this episode when I was a kid, this one always made me really sad and I've always thought that Branion was innocent and railroaded(probably because of the way UM tells the story), an anti-MacDonald if you will....

But having just rewatched the segment as an "adult" with a BA in Criminology and presently working on my MA as well(not to brag, but rather to provide some context to my perspective), I've flipped.

Looking at it now, while cheating on his wife, the gun situation, the timing issue, the bail jump aren't enough alone to be the coffin nail into the case and his interview doesn't incite one to exclaim "oh yeah, he did it" like others cough~Mark Nichols~ cough, because he has a plausible defense and is well-spoken, when I analyze it all, this case really hinks me and altogether, I'm leaning deeper and deeper towards his involvement. Looking at the whole picture and reading up a lot on the case, it's changed my perspective.

Dunno if this happens to others on here, but the UM representation had really coloured my POV on this case and only afterwards upon further research did I change my opinion nearly 180 degrees, which I find tremendously interesting....

Dunno if this happens to others on here, but the UM representation had really coloured my POV on this case and only afterwards upon further research did I change my opinion nearly 180 degrees, which I find tremendously interesting....

On virtually every Final Appeal segment, UM has left a ton of information out of each segment. Which, obviously has to be done, since most of the segments range from 11-22 minutes each. But in a lot of the cases (Glenn Consagra, Stuart Heaton, Larry Race, Jeffrey MacDonald) they gloss over or completely ignore the evidence used to convict them. Instead, they tend to show exculpatory evidence to make the viewer question the verdict. And I think that's what they were doing with the Branion segment. A quick mention of the "hit man" theory, and then back to showing how impossible it was for Branion to have driven around town and had enough time to kill his wife.

Testimony at Branion's trial has said there were only 4 gunshot wounds to Donna's head and neck area. Police found four cartridge casings near her body, 3 spent shells, and then the fourth and final spent shell was found in Donna's body during her autopsy. Another interesting tidbit from Branion's trial that I had glossed over: Branion's house was protected by a "special burglar-proof lock". Without any signs of forced entry, how did these intruders get into the house? They obviously did not have a gun before entering the apartment, so it's not like they could have forced their way in.

As I said, there were 13 gunshot wounds. That's stated in the book. If you want further proof, here it is:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-08-25/features/9103030674_1_prominent-chicago-police-cmdr-apartment

Also stated in the book was that Donna frequently left one of the doors unlocked for a neighbor/friend of hers that liked to come over. I don't know how you can conclude they didn't have a gun.

As I said, there were 13 gunshot wounds. That's stated in the book. If you want further proof, here it is:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-08-25/features/9103030674_1_prominent-chicago-police-cmdr-apartment

Donna would have been hit by four rounds, given the number and type of injuries. Three of the rounds passed through her hand and continued through her body. An additional round was found lodged in her body at autopsy.

Hand: 3 entrance, 3 exit = 6 wounds
Head, neck, shoulder (the continued path of the rounds that pierced the hand): 3 entrance, 3 exit = 6 wounds
Additional round: 1 entrance
Total: 13

It would be incorrect to state she received only four gunshot wounds, yes, but it seems twelve of the wounds were created by the same three rounds.

ETA: The article states the rounds went through both her hands. The only way this could be possible while maintaining the total of thirteen is correct is if two rounds went through one hand and one round went through the other.

What I'm curious to know was if these were point-blank shots, or from further away.

Nobody testified that Branion changed his clothes, was wearing torn clothes, or anything of that nature. I have to ask how likely is it that Branion would have been able to avoid a) blood splatter, b) some type of torn shirt, something that would indicate a struggle (I'm thinking there was likely a struggle).

Meg, do you think Branion did this himself or do you think he hired a hit man, and what led you to believe that? thanks.

What I'm curious to know was if these were point-blank shots, or from further away.

Nobody testified that Branion changed his clothes, was wearing torn clothes, or anything of that nature. I have to ask how likely is it that Branion would have been able to avoid a) blood splatter, b) some type of torn shirt, something that would indicate a struggle (I'm thinking there was likely a struggle).

I agree this would all be very useful information.

Meg, do you think Branion did this himself or do you think he hired a hit man, and what led you to believe that? thanks.

The short answer is that I'm not sure about either, really. I think some facts weigh heavily against Dr. Branion, notably what we've been discussing recently: the firearm, the ammunition, etc. They're extremely difficult to look past, IMO.

On the other hand, the motive is murky. As Branion said himself, his relationship with Shirley wasn't a "hot-on-the-burner affair", and had been ongoing for six years at the time of Donna's murder. Although Donna reportedly did not desire a divorce, fearing it would negatively impact her social standing, Branion also stated he never thought of leaving her. For some reason (and it's probably not a great one, as it's simply based in a strong feeling) I believe Branion is telling the truth here.

Additionally, there's the timing issue UM presented. I think it would have been difficult to have pulled off that crime given the timeline multiple witnesses can attest to, not the least of which is Theresa Kentra, who heard those four shots and the commotion that preceded it. But then there's that unusual lunch date made rather late at night just the night before the murder, and Cars' idea about it is basically what it kind of smells like to me, too.

Tony D'Amato does make a good point: no evidence of Branion hiring a hit man was presented by the defense, which tells me they probably had pretty much zip to support that theory in court. Of course I have no idea how these things go, but I can't imagine a "client" providing a hitman their personally owned firearm to "do the job". So that seems to weigh in Branion's favor somewhat.

But again, I cannot get over the PPK. This, at that time in 1967, is a firearm you have to jump through logistical hoops to obtain. I maintain there probably weren't that many floating around the U.S., and that the average burglar in Chicagoland probably wouldn't own one. I find it highly suspicious that Branion's brand-new box of .380 ammunition was missing exactly four rounds, and that the brand used in Donna's murder was an exact match with Branion's. On top of that, this box of ammo was locked away in a cabinet during the initial search of the home. Smells bad.

At the end of the day though, I see strong means, but relatively little motive and opportunity on this one.

If Theresa Kentra is to be believed, the shots and the commotion happened around 11:20 - 11:25, times at which Branion was still at his office, which could have been corroborated by several people. There's also the issue of the mark around her neck, which an expert said would take 15-30 minutes to form. If Branion did this himself, he would have had to enter the apartment, struggle with Donna to the point the mark on her neck forms, shoot her several times, flip all of the lights on, turn two televisions on, turn over the furniture, make sure his appearance isn't disheveled in any way, tie up any other loose ends and leave. Could he have done all that in such a little timeframe?

If not, the only other way he's guilty is if he hired a hit man. The question that needs to be asked then is, is Branion stupid enough to a) have his own gun used, b) have his own ammo used, c) not stage a robbery/sexual assault motive, d) have himself out and about in the area at roughly the time this is going on. Unless he's stupid which I don't believe, he would have to known any one of those things in and of itself could come back to haunt him, let alone all 4 together.

There's also Branion's flight from the U.S., which I think actually casts doubt on his guilt rather than innocence. As I've stated elsewhere, he is willing to serve time in foreign prisons for crimes he undoubtedly committed, i.e., passport fraud, while knowing he is in poor health and has little access to the quality of care he would receive in the United States. As you know, Branion's time on the run was no picnic--he endured poor health, warfare, and corrupt governments nearly the entire time he was there. That would seem to indicate to me that his sense of indignation is rooted in being accused and convicted of a crime he allegedly did not commit, not in serving time or otherwise living in unfavorable conditions. If there's anything to be said about Branion, he tends to own up readily--to having extramarital affairs all the way to actually breaking the law (barring aside this crime he was convicted of committing, of course). It's not like he isn't brutally honest about MANY of the morally questionable things he's done in his life.

I also don't buy that race wasn't a factor in Branion's case merely because he was wealthy and his community was ethnically diverse. That isn't a magic wand that makes prejudice and racism suddenly disappear, especially in the late 1960s.

Well if someone set him up they sure did a good job of it. I can't get pass the fact that if he hired someone that he would have used his own "rare" gun and his own bullets. Doesn't make any sense at all. I'm guessing that $500.00 in cash was alot of money back in 1967. If it was in fact taken with the gun. Too bad Donna's fingernail clippings were destroyed/lost in this case. They could be tested for DNA that would prove that he in didn't kill her.

So either this man was really dumb (which I don't buy) or the person that did kill Donna has gotten away with murder all these years. Anytime a spouse is killed the husband/wife is the most likely the #1 suspect. Add a affair into the mix and the spouse looks guilty from the get go. I don't think they explored any other avenues in the case.

Wiseguy has really made me interested in reading that book. I think I'll take a trip over to Amazon.

-Technically, Branion was convicted of a crime he did not commit. I do not believe he murdered his wife. But I do think he had a hand in it. But the fact that he was convicted of the actual murder itself may have been reason for his flight and refusal to serve out the sentence.

-And with regards to race being a factor in this case: it was stated in the UM segment that Branion remained free from jail for three years after his conviction. If race were a factor, this most surely wouldn't have been the case. It was, IMO, his wealth and status that kept him out of prison for the three year period before he fled the country. And I tried to find out what kind of atmosphere Chicago was like during the Civil Rights movement, and the only thing I found was an article from a Chicago history website which said that by 1965, "never before had Chicago experienced such a dramatic and sustained demand for racial justice."

-And I was incorrect in saying "four gunshot wounds". I was meaning to simply say "four gunshots" or that Donna was only shot four times. Meg cleared that up much better than I ever could.

-I would really like to know whether or not Branion was an "expert" in firearms. If he was, this would tend to support an innocent claim, because it would have been very stupid for him to hire a hitman to use his own personal weapon, knowing ballistics would trace it back to his gun. But then again, if Branion was a novice, he may not have ever even thought about the gun being traced back to him, and figured his alibi about being away from the residence would have been good enough.

If there's anything to be said about Branion, he tends to own up readily--to having extramarital affairs all the way to actually breaking the law (barring aside this crime he was convicted of committing, of course). It's not like he isn't brutally honest about MANY of the morally questionable things he's done in his life.

I hate to keep bringing the scum up, but Jeffrey MacDonald admitted to several affairs, as well as lying to his in-laws about finding and killing one of the "intruders". Branion just comes off more likeable and less narcissistic in his interviews.

And FWIW, Branion's son Joby is now a successful NFL agent.

-And with regards to race being a factor in this case: it was stated in the UM segment that Branion remained free from jail for three years after his conviction. If race were a factor, this most surely wouldn't have been the case. It was, IMO, his wealth and status that kept him out of prison for the three year period before he fled the country. And I tried to find out what kind of atmosphere Chicago was like during the Civil Rights movement, and the only thing I found was an article from a Chicago history website which said that by 1965, "never before had Chicago experienced such a dramatic and sustained demand for racial justice."

Right, but there definitely was a dramatic and sustained demand for a reason. Cabrini-Green by itself was reason enough.

-I would really like to know whether or not Branion was an "expert" in firearms. If he was, this would tend to support an innocent claim, because it would have been very stupid for him to hire a hitman to use his own personal weapon, knowing ballistics would trace it back to his gun. But then again, if Branion was a novice, he may not have ever even thought about the gun being traced back to him, and figured his alibi about being away from the residence would have been good enough.

Branion even crafted his own ammunition, so I think it's a safe bet that he probably understood the impacts of rifling marks and the like.

I hate to keep bringing the scum up, but Jeffrey MacDonald admitted to several affairs, as well as lying to his in-laws about finding and killing one of the "intruders". Branion just comes off more likeable and less narcissistic in his interviews.

And FWIW, Branion's son Joby is now a successful NFL agent.

All definitely true.

I noticed Joby was an NFL agent as well. You can definitely the resemblance between him and his father.

A long read if you're interested. The author is Tony D'Amato.

http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/a90F-ultimate.pdf

This is something that jumped out at me:

Without knowing the lack of evidence upon which Judge Easterbrook based his assertions, a reader might likely infer a motive on Dr. Branion's part--to suddenly murder his wife so he could marry his mistress. [FN88] Yet here is where some of Dr. Branion's biographical information with which I began this essay is important for seeing the complete picture. Dr. Branion's friendship with Shirley Hudson had gone on peaceably for six years prior to Donna's murder. Why would he not consider getting a divorce? Perhaps, most importantly, because Donna was a potential heiress and Dr. Branion wanted Donna's money. But then why would he murder Donna? Certainly, had Donna already received her inheritance from her father, and had Dr. Branion been Donna's sole heir, Dr. Branion's motive for killing Donna would have been self-evident. Donna's death, however, occurred while her father, who would have bequeathed a large part of his estate to her, was alive. Dr. Branion had a very strong financial motive for keeping Donna alive. Accordingly, murdering Donna was, in fact, counterproductive to Dr. Branion's pecuniary interests. By mentioning none of these things, Judge Easterbrook was able to sketch a misleading inference of a motive for murder.

Branion even crafted his own ammunition, so I think it's a safe bet that he probably understood the impacts of rifling marks and the like.

Was not aware of that, if he wasn't an "expert", he definitely knew more than the average joe about firearms. And that's interesting about Branion's inheritance, and basically keeping Donna alive would have helped his chances of receiving it since her father was still alive. But I think people tend to get too hung up on motives in cases. People always want to know the "why" in situations like these, when in all likelihood they may never know the true reason. Branion could have had several reasons for wanting Donna dead, money may not have even been a concern for him. But basically what it boils down to is who had the more reasonable motive for Donna's murder? Branion or a random intruder? Why would an intruder break in, strangle Donna, and then search Branion's residence, find a gun and the ammunition, and then slug Donna four times? It just doesn't make sense. For those who have more knowledge on this case, what is the defense's theory of what happened to Donna? Do they think it was a random attack, or that Branion was set up?

Was not aware of that, if he wasn't an "expert", he definitely knew more than the average joe about firearms. And that's interesting about Branion's inheritance, and basically keeping Donna alive would have helped his chances of receiving it since her father was still alive. But I think people tend to get too hung up on motives in cases. People always want to know the "why" in situations like these, when in all likelihood they may never know the true reason. Branion could have had several reasons for wanting Donna dead, money may not have even been a concern for him. But basically what it boils down to is who had the more reasonable motive for Donna's murder? Branion or a random intruder? Why would an intruder break in, strangle Donna, and then search Branion's residence, find a gun and the ammunition, and then slug Donna four times? It just doesn't make sense. For those who have more knowledge on this case, what is the defense's theory of what happened to Donna? Do they think it was a random attack, or that Branion was set up?

Well, the law says you have to have a motive to prove a crime.

You suggested that the gun might be payment enough. I don't know about that, but combined with the $500 it could be. $500 doesn't go all that far nowadays, but back then it was a hell of a lot of money.

Glad to see this thread bumped. It certainly is a compelling case, and I see a few posters have read the book about the case - which is still on my infamous "to do" list...

One question I do have though, what do you guys think of the prosecution/prosecutor in this case?

The issue of Branion's factual guilt or innocence aside for a moment, I was always perplexed by the prosecutor's comments on Unsolved Mysteries about how he was never sure (even at the time of prosecution) if Branion was the triggerman (his exact words escape me) but that he thought Dr. Branion was still guilty (alluding to the hired hit theory). Strangely, this bit of the segment was always edited out on Lifetime repeats.

Granted, there is a paucity of evidence for the hired hit theory, I will freely concede to that.

However, how ethical is it of the prosecution to present a case with the defendant as the triggerman when such doubts exist and were presented on television (albeit 20+ years later but still)?

My knowledge of the law is limited in that regard, but does anyone else think it is possible that Branion could have sought post-conviction relief on those grounds alone? Really, he didn't even need the innocence defense at that point, although the innocence defense will always generate the most controversy...

I think I've said this before, but Branion's case always reminded of Glen Consagra in terms of how the prosecution dealt with it. There is some doubt that that both men pulled the trigger, and plausible evidence of accomplices, yet the prosecution presents a lone gunman theory...on that note, I'm not saying I think either is innocent, just an interesting point...

whoa, nice to see you Justin.

The problem for me is that, according to Barbara D'Amato, the jury convicted Branion believing he was the triggerman, and the prosecution later admitted he couldn't have possibly pulled the trigger himself due to the lack of time. I tend to believe her.

And also interesting is that Branion voluntarily suggested he be given a sodium nitrate test. If he had pulled the trigger, I seriously doubt he would have suggested such a thing.

So that leaves the hit man theory. Would Branion, an intelligent man, be stupid enough to have his own weapon used, his own ammo used, not stage an obvious robbery/sexual assault, and have himself out and about at roughly the same time he knows the murder is being committed AND have his own 4 year old son walk in on the dead body of his mother?

So that leaves the hit man theory. Would Branion, an intelligent man, be stupid enough to have his own weapon used, his own ammo used, not stage an obvious robbery/sexual assault, and have himself out and about at roughly the same time he knows the murder is being committed AND have his own 4 year old son walk in on the dead body of his mother?

But you have to think about it from the other side of the coin as well. These unknown intruders were either awfully lucky, or highly intelligent. They chose to strike (motive unknown) a house who had a special "burglar proof" lock, and somehow got inside without any signs of forced entry. They also didn't come armed with a weapon, but instead found a gun that was normally kept locked in a safe. And then they found the ammunition for the gun which was kept in a completely different location, and murdered Donna Branion without stealing anything from the residence other than the PPK.

Perhaps Branion wasn't stupid...but the people he hired to do the job were. Maybe he told them to stage a sexual assault/robbery, but they either forgot or botched it?

But you have to think about it from the other side of the coin as well. These unknown intruders were either awfully lucky, or highly intelligent. They chose to strike (motive unknown) a house who had a special "burglar proof" lock, and somehow got inside without any signs of forced entry. They also didn't come armed with a weapon, but instead found a gun that was normally kept locked in a safe. And then they found the ammunition for the gun which was kept in a completely different location, and murdered Donna Branion without stealing anything from the residence other than the PPK.

Perhaps Branion wasn't stupid...but the people he hired to do the job were. Maybe he told them to stage a sexual assault/robbery, but they either forgot or botched it?

I've already stated numerous times that Donna was known to purposefully keep one of the doors unlocked for a friend/neighbor that liked to come over. Just because a person has a lock on their door doesn't mean they keep it locked 24/7. You also don't know that they didn't bring a gun. One possible scenario is that they brought their own weapon, but found one in the house and decided to use that instead.

I've already stated numerous times that Donna was known to purposefully keep one of the doors unlocked for a friend/neighbor that liked to come over. Just because a person has a lock on their door doesn't mean they keep it locked 24/7. You also don't know that they didn't bring a gun. One possible scenario is that they brought their own weapon, but found one in the house and decided to use that instead.

I don't remember reading that part about Donna keeping the door unlocked. And if the brought their own weapon, why in turn would they search a residence for another? What's the purpose? If armed, they obviously had intention to commit some sort of crime at the household: burglary, sexual assault, or murder. We can rule out sexual assault. Nothing was missing from the house except the PPK, so if burglary was the motive, Donna was murdered over a gun. And murder was definitely not the motive (assuming Branion is innocent of hiring a hitman), because why would an unknown intruder/s force their way into Branion's home just to murder his wife? And again, the importance of the gun being locked cannot be overlooked. These intruders just so happened to strike on a day when the gun, usually locked in a safe, was not.

I don't remember reading that part about Donna keeping the door unlocked.

it's in the book.

Nothing was missing from the house except the PPK, so if burglary was the motive, Donna was murdered over a gun.

how do I be pc about this: I think we're going around in circles here. $500 was missing. I have to imagine that a good share or robbers prefer cash: it's not easily traceable.

how do I be pc about this: I think we're going around in circles here. $500 was missing. I have to imagine that a good share or robbers prefer cash: it's not easily traceable.

I haven't read the book, sorry if I didn't hear any of this beforehand.

I don't think it's necessarily an implausible theory that Donna's murder could have been a burglary gone wrong. Weren't there multiple burglaries in the area around that time? I thought I remembered reading that in the book. And yes, Donna did have a practice of leaving that door unlocked for her friend, so there's your easy entrance into the home.

Also, there were garroting marks around Donna's neck. Why would those be there, especially in light of the fact that she was eventually shot? I think this piece of information tends to indicate two assailants--as mentioned on the UM segment--rather than one. So if Branion did indeed hire a party to kill his wife (and I'm beginning to seriously doubt he did, as there's little hard evidence to indicate this as far as we know), it would seem he hired at least two people.

I don't know. Branion was not only a wealthy, prominent African American professional, but politically left-leaning and visibly involved in the civil rights cause, and additionally was an "underground" abortion provider for some time (again, by his own admission). I'd say ALL of that would have been incentive enough for someone to want to put him under the jail, whether he deserved it or not.

I think Donna put a good fight for her life. The person or person(s) that were assaulting her maybe decided to finally end her life with a weapon. Where was the gun that was used in the murder? If the gun was never found then how do they know that this gun was used in the crime? Were the bullets missing only able to be used in the PPR? (I'm not a gun expert-I don't own any).

If the gun was never found then how do they know that this gun was used in the crime? Were the bullets missing only able to be used in the PPR? (I'm not a gun expert-I don't own any).

Under the circumstances, there is no way to know whether the PPK owned by Branion was used to kill Donna.

You can use .380 ACP ammunition in any firearm capable of firing it (i.e., of the same caliber). For example, a SIG Sauer P238 is the same caliber as a Walther PPK, so they both fire .380 ACP (also called 9 milimeter short) ammunition. So unless there was some kind of analysis on the rifling marks on the rounds found at the crime scene that allowed analysts to conclude they were fired from a Walther PPK (I'm not sure how sophisticated this kind of analysis was in the late '60s), you would not be able to say with certainty that they indeed were. They could have come from any .380 ACP/9 mm short handgun.

According to one of the appeal briefs, Branion owned a Hi Standard Model G, which also fires .380 ACP.

I wonder if they tested all his guns. Or if that was even done back in 1967. I guess wiseguy would know more about this since he has read the book.

I haven't read the book, but do they talk about Branion's neighbor who was the "timeline" witness of sorts? She was putting groceries away and at about 11:30 a.m. she heard a loud bang followed by "2 or 3 similar sounds" and then a commotion. This lady shared a back porch with the Branion's. I was wondering what the "commotion" was she could have heard, if it happened after Donna was shot. And I don't necessarily think there would have to have been 2 people involved. Had someone surprised Donna and shot her immediately, and then placed the marks around her neck, you would only need one person to accomplish this.

And a firearms expert testified at Branion's trial and stated that the slugs recovered from the crime scene could only have been fired by a PPK because he determined that the gun would need a "loading indicator" to get the same striations found on the recovered slugs. Now it can't be said 100% certain that the PPK used was Branion's, but that's awful coincidental that his goes missing after his wife's murder.

Her name is Theresa Kentra and yes the book talks about her. She heard the noises at around 11:20, when Branion was still at the hospital.

If John was the shooter, then getting rid of the gun is just yet another thing he has to do in the narrow timeframe. And he must have hid it well because it still hasn't been found, nearly 50 years later.

Her name is Theresa Kentra and yes the book talks about her. She heard the noises at around 11:20, when Branion was still at the hospital.

If John was the shooter, then getting rid of the gun is just yet another thing he has to do in the narrow timeframe. And he must have hid it well because it still hasn't been found, nearly 50 years later.

I've never thought Branion was the actual murderer. The evidence against the hit theory is little to none, I admit that. But the most damning evidence against Branion, IMO, is the missing PPK, and the four cartridges missing from his ammunition box.

Had someone surprised Donna and shot her immediately, and then placed the marks around her neck, you would only need one person to accomplish this.

It depends on what those marks looked like. If they were created after death, they would have simply been grooves without bruising. If there was bruising about the neck, they would have had to have been made when Donna was still alive.

Why would someone create those marks on her neck after shooting her?

It depends on what those marks looked like. If they were created after death, they would have simply been grooves without bruising. If there was bruising about the neck, they would have had to have been made when Donna was still alive.

Why would someone create those marks on her neck after shooting her?

I would have to go back and double check, but I think this evidence was brought out on the actual UM segment itself.

I believe the pathologist said that the grooves in her neck due to strangulation would had to have been made before death (as they wouldn't continue to form after death) and that it would have taken several minutes for them to form.

IIRC, this was proffered as more evidence that Branion couldn't have been the triggerman because the crime would have taken considerably longer to commit than the state claimed, and Branion was alibied out for at least some of that time.

Personally, I always found these details suspicious. Whoever the perp was, it seems like they really wanted Donna dead. Strangulation for several minutes (which apparently didn't work) then the gun was used.

And a firearms expert testified at Branion's trial and stated that the slugs recovered from the crime scene could only have been fired by a PPK because he determined that the gun would need a "loading indicator" to get the same striations found on the recovered slugs. Now it can't be said 100% certain that the PPK used was Branion's, but that's awful coincidental that his goes missing after his wife's murder.

I'm having trouble following his/her logic. Many handgun makes/models have loaded chamber indicators (LCI). I can see how you would be able to ascertain a round was fired from a weapon with an LCI, but not how you could then say the round was absolutely fired from a Walther PPK.

whoa, nice to see you Justin.

The problem for me is that, according to Barbara D'Amato, the jury convicted Branion believing he was the triggerman, and the prosecution later admitted he couldn't have possibly pulled the trigger himself due to the lack of time. I tend to believe her.

And also interesting is that Branion voluntarily suggested he be given a sodium nitrate test. If he had pulled the trigger, I seriously doubt he would have suggested such a thing.

So that leaves the hit man theory. Would Branion, an intelligent man, be stupid enough to have his own weapon used, his own ammo used, not stage an obvious robbery/sexual assault, and have himself out and about at roughly the same time he knows the murder is being committed AND have his own 4 year old son walk in on the dead body of his mother?

Thanks for the welcome.

I believe what Barbara D'Amato said, and it pretty much jibes with what the prosecutor alluded to on UM - that the theory of prosecution was that Branion was the triggerman, yet even the state had doubts about whether it was possible.

My best guess is that the DA's office believed Branion was guilty "of something" having to do with his wife's death, yet the only way they could possibly get a conviction was to present the case that he was the sole shooter. I think anything else would have been too convoluted. However, I've always been bothered by the ethics of this, personally.

Same deal with Glen Consagra. I think the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests he "did something" in regard to Freddie and MaryLou's deaths. However, there is evidence that he may not have acted alone, and may not have been the one to actually pull the trigger. Yet, the evidence was strong enough to still elicit a guilty plea from Consagra, so the state didn't pursue the matter further after he plead out.

I believe what you said Barbara D'Amato, and it pretty much jibes with what the prosecutor alluded to on UM - that the theory of prosecution was that Branion was the triggerman, yet even the state had doubts about whether it was possible.

My best guess is that the DA's office believed Branion was guilty "of something" having to do with his wife's death, yet the only way they could possibly get a conviction was to present the case that he was the sole shooter. I think anything else would have been too convoluted. However, I've always been bothered by the ethics of this, personally.

Same deal with Glen Consagra. I think the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests he "did something" in regard to Freddie and MaryLou's deaths. However, there is evidence that he may not have acted alone, and may not have been the one to actually pull the trigger. Yet, the evidence was strong enough to still elicit a guilty plea from Consagra, so the state didn't pursue the matter further after he plead out.

^ Agreed on all. It's no wonder Branion himself said he didn't think the prosecution thought they were going to get him convicted, despite his arrest.

I'm having trouble following his/her logic. Many handgun makes/models have loaded chamber indicators (LCI). I can see how you would be able to ascertain a round was fired from a weapon with an LCI, but not how you could then say the round was absolutely fired from a Walther PPK.

Just reposting this from one of Branion's appeals, maybe it will clear up some confusion:

"A firearms expert from the Chicago Police Department Crime Laboratory, Officer Burt Nielsen, stated that the four pellets "had a class characteristic of .380 caliber automatic ammunition with six lands and grooves with a right twist". Lands are the raised portions inside the barrel of a gun and the grooves are the spaces between the lands. They are spiral and impart the spin motion to the bullet. As the bullet passes through the barrel it is engraved with markings of the lands and grooves. This characteristic is the same as that found in a Walther PPK and a few other weapons, he said. The cartridge casings, however had markings on their bases which signified that the weapon used to fire the cartridges had a "loading indicator." The expert testified that only one weapon which fires .380 caliber automatic ammunition has both a loading indicator and leaves six lands and grooves to the right on the pellets. That weapon is a Walther PPK. It was his opinion, taking the pellets with the lands and grooves together with the cartridge casings with the loading indicator markings, that the deceased must have been killed by bullets fired from a Walther PPK."

From this, it seems like the expert matched the PPK due to the markings on the casings, and not the bullets themselves.

Why would someone create those marks on her neck after shooting her?

Well since justins5256 has shown the marks were created before her death, I doubt it happened this way. But the marks may have been made to make it look like there was another motive for her death. Just speculating here of course, but if Branion did hire someone to kill his wife he may have instructed them to strangle her first to not cause a commotion. Either they knew she wasn't dead (maybe she was strangled unconscious and then began to regain it) or they wanted to make sure she was dead, and then shot her.

And FWIW, Branion's brother-in-law claims that the PPK and another gun were stolen (the other gun was worth $1500-2000).

And just curious, how does the book address the issue of the missing PPK and the four bullets missing from the cartridge box?

Well since justins5256 has shown the marks were created before her death, I doubt it happened this way. But the marks may have been made to make it look like there was another motive for her death. Just speculating here of course, but if Branion did hire someone to kill his wife he may have instructed them to strangle her first to not cause a commotion. Either they knew she wasn't dead (maybe she was strangled unconscious and then began to regain it) or they wanted to make sure she was dead, and then shot her.

My knee jerk reaction to the strangling and the shooting combination was incompetence coupled with an overkill to ensure the job was done.

In other words, I think it's likely that whoever did this either wasn't strong enough, or didn't anticipate how difficult it would be to actually strangle someone to death, so resorted to using the gun when that failed, and fired more shots than were necessary to kill her.

I mean, assuming this was a hired hit, wouldn't they just want to get in and get out as quickly as possible without making a lot of noise (i.e., not using a gun)? Strangulation works to their advantage then, but it sounds like it took them a long time (several minutes for those grooves to form) before using the gun.

On that note, I would also be curious to know what she was strangled with. Something that was already in the house? Something brought to the scene? In either case, was the instrument left at the scene or taken away?

I also noticed that Branion mentioned when he discovered Donna's body that her skirt was "rookered up". Could he be giving a nod to the notion of attempted sexual assault?

In other words, I think it's likely that whoever did this either wasn't strong enough, or didn't anticipate how difficult it would be to actually strangle someone to death, so resorted to using the gun when that failed, and fired more shots than were necessary to kill her.

I agree. I think whoever strangled her didn't realize just how difficult it was to kill someone via strangulation, thought she was dead, but then realized she wasn't so then they shot her four times.

I mean, assuming this was a hired hit, wouldn't they just want to get in and get out as quickly as possible without making a lot of noise (i.e., not using a gun)? Strangulation works to their advantage then, but it sounds like it took them a long time (several minutes for those grooves to form) before using the gun.

Pure speculation here: but if Branion promised the hitman/men the guns missing from the house as a payoff, this could explain why at first she was strangled and then shot with the PPK. They probably located the guns in question, realized she was still alive, and then retrieved the ammo to finish her off.

On that note, I would also be curious to know what she was strangled with. Something that was already in the house? Something brought to the scene? In either case, was the instrument left at the scene or taken away?

She was strangled with the cord on her iron. Again, this indicates that whoever murdered her came to the house with no weapon at all. "Her neck was bruised; she had been garrotted with the cord from her iron. The pressure was not great enough to break any bones." That was from one of Branion's appeals. It also notes, "Defense counsel asked the pathologist: "Would you tell me how long would be a long period of time to make a bruise like that if the pressure weren't great?", to which the pathologist replied: "I would say fifteen minutes to a half hour." Neither side pursued the matter further at trial. Branion now insists that the pathologist's testimony means that pressure was applied to his wife's neck continuously for 15-30 minutes, which was impossible given the time sequence; the state believes that the testimony means only that a bruise would have taken 15-30 minutes to form after the application of pressure, and that the pathologist was in any event throwing off a rough estimate rather than giving the physical limits." So if I'm reading this correctly, the pathologist says that bruising would occur 15-30 minutes after the pressure from the cord had been applied to her neck, and not the fact that it would have occurred had the cord been applied for a full 15-30 minutes.

I also noticed that Branion mentioned when he discovered Donna's body that her skirt was "rookered up". Could he be giving a nod to the notion of attempted sexual assault?

Probably. I think Branion hired someone who, obviously, screwed up big time by not getting the "job" done by strangling Donna, who then used Branion's personal weapon to murder her, and then in an attempt to stage the scene rifled her skirt up to make it look like a sexual assault gone wrong.

Probably. I think Branion hired someone who, obviously, screwed up big time by not getting the "job" done by strangling Donna, who then used Branion's personal weapon to murder her, and then in an attempt to stage the scene rifled her skirt up to make it look like a sexual assault gone wrong.
This seems the most likely

Just reposting this from one of Branion's appeals, maybe it will clear up some confusion:

"A firearms expert from the Chicago Police Department Crime Laboratory, Officer Burt Nielsen, stated that the four pellets "had a class characteristic of .380 caliber automatic ammunition with six lands and grooves with a right twist". Lands are the raised portions inside the barrel of a gun and the grooves are the spaces between the lands. They are spiral and impart the spin motion to the bullet. As the bullet passes through the barrel it is engraved with markings of the lands and grooves. This characteristic is the same as that found in a Walther PPK and a few other weapons, he said. The cartridge casings, however had markings on their bases which signified that the weapon used to fire the cartridges had a "loading indicator." The expert testified that only one weapon which fires .380 caliber automatic ammunition has both a loading indicator and leaves six lands and grooves to the right on the pellets. That weapon is a Walther PPK. It was his opinion, taking the pellets with the lands and grooves together with the cartridge casings with the loading indicator markings, that the deceased must have been killed by bullets fired from a Walther PPK."

From this, it seems like the expert matched the PPK due to the markings on the casings, and not the bullets themselves.

Ok, that puts it in context and makes sense. Thanks.

Did Shirley have a alibi for the day of the murder? I woman would have a much harder time strangling someone. Just a theory.

The thing that bothers me about the Branion-hired-a-hitman theory is that there doesn't appear to be any real evidence that he did so:

1. There's a missing handgun, sure. But was that firearm actually registered to Branion? If it was, why on earth would he hand it off not only to be used in the commission of the crime, but as payment for that crime? You have to know he knew better.

2. There was $500 missing from the home as well. I thought Branion himself was the one who reported that sum missing, though.

3. The prosecution didn't even bother presenting that theory in court. That's extremely telling, IMO.

4. No one--in nearly 50 years--has ever come forward to suggest an individual or group of individuals Branion might have hired to commit the crime.

The thing that bothers me about the Branion-hired-a-hitman theory is that there doesn't appear to be any real evidence that he did so

I agree 100%. I guess it's just a judgement call. For me it comes down to who had the bigger motive in killing Donna. An unknown intruder who presumably was there to burglarize the house, had strangled and incapacitated Donna...why did they feel the need to search the residence and shoot her four times? If the motive was robbery or even sexual assault, why even kill her? She was already strangled, they could have got what they came for and left. Going back and grabbing the PPK and the ammunition (the exact amount of times she was shot was the same exact amount of bullets missing) makes it seem like something was planned, IMO. If the intruders went to the gun and ammo in a frenzy, why take the time to remove four bullets from the pack instead of grabbing the pack and dropping some, or just taking the whole pack with them?

Going back and grabbing the PPK and the ammunition (the exact amount of times she was shot was the same exact amount of bullets missing) makes it seem like something was planned, IMO. If the intruders went to the gun and ammo in a frenzy, why take the time to remove four bullets from the pack instead of grabbing the pack and dropping some, or just taking the whole pack with them?

I agree--the PPK and number/type/brand of ammunition missing is more than highly suspicious for sure.

I agree--the PPK and number/type/brand of ammunition missing is more than highly suspicious for sure.

That's why I cannot say I believe Branion to be innocent. Sure it's in all probability impossible that he could have been the one who actually pulled the trigger to murder Donna. But the PPK and the four missing slugs keep nagging at me. Add the odd request for lunch the night before his wife's murder, the way he went around town somewhat suspiciously showing himself around to several people, etc. and it just doesn't add up, IMO.

That's why I cannot say I believe Branion to be innocent. Sure it's in all probability impossible that he could have been the one who actually pulled the trigger to murder Donna. But the PPK and the four missing slugs keep nagging at me. Add the odd request for lunch the night before his wife's murder, the way he went around town somewhat suspiciously showing himself around to several people, etc. and it just doesn't add up, IMO.

Agreed. While none of the specific points, alone, scream guilty, IMHO, the totality of circumstances and the lack of a reasonable hypothesis of innocence strongly suggests Dr. Branion was involved.

Glad to see justins5256 back at the forum.

One aspect of this case that has me confused is testimony at Branion's trial from one of his friends. Her testimony was that on the day after Donna's murder, Branion, Shirley, and another friend were at at her apartment. She testified that while she was sitting in the bathroom crying, Branion took Shirley to a back room for a "private conversation". I'm assuming this was brought up to show that Branion was having an affair with Shirley, but that would be an awful big stretch...I wonder why it was ever even brought up at the trial. And apparently, Branion wasn't as forthcoming as he was in later interviews about his affairs, because he denied having one with Shirley around the time of his wife's murder.

Glad to see justins5256 back at the forum.

+1. I think I speak for everyone when I say he's been greatly missed.

One aspect of this case that has me confused is testimony at Branion's trial from one of his friends. Her testimony was that on the day after Donna's murder, Branion, Shirley, and another friend were at at her apartment. She testified that while she was sitting in the bathroom crying, Branion took Shirley to a back room for a "private conversation". I'm assuming this was brought up to show that Branion was having an affair with Shirley, but that would be an awful big stretch...I wonder why it was ever even brought up at the trial. And apparently, Branion wasn't as forthcoming as he was in later interviews about his affairs, because he denied having one with Shirley around the time of his wife's murder.

I have no idea why, as it was apparently common knowledge enough for even Donna to be aware of it.

I've also been pretty uncomfortable about the testimony from multiple people who said Branion was repeatedly peeking at investigators through his fingers as he covered his face to (supposedly) cry on the day of the murder.

Doctors committing murder is extremely rare. One of the few other cases I know of involved a county coroner in Florida, who had injected his wife with something rather in the middle of the night, then went to work in the morning. You may have seen this as it's been on a few other true crime shows. His crime was undiscovered for a while as he had the body embalmed shortly after death and it took new technology to figure it out (and even the new technology they used has come into question.) I'm thinking a doctor, like Branion, would have done something more along these lines were he to murder his wife. Surely a doctor would know of some untraceable poison or something to use.

Regarding the statements that it was suspicious Branion's own gun and ammo were used: the gun (and ammo) weren't even supposed to be used. They, in conjuction, were an afterthought. I personally think that too much attention is being paid to them because they weren't even supposed to have been a factor at all. Whoever did this attempted to strangle Donna, and it was only when that didn't work, that they went for a gun. They didn't bring a gun because they didn't plan on using one. So it's natural, because the strangulation didn't work, that they searched the house for a gun or some other weapon. Now someone said that it was suspicious that the cord used to strangle Donna came from the Branion house (an iron). I say that is baloney. They wouldn't need to bring a cord with them because just about every household has a plethora of cords (and an upscale house will likely have more as they have more appliances). Heck, the room I'm sitting in right now has literally dozens of cords -- and that's just ONE room of the house.

Various people on here, researchers, experts and even judges have testified that there is no way on God's green Earth Branion could have done this himself given the conditions and time allotted. I am in full agreement with that. And since there is ZERO evidence that he hired a hit man (but plenty of speculation) I cannot understand at all why he was convicted.

John made regular trips to Indiana during the time period. If he hired a hit man, surely he could have arranged it so that he was out of state while the whole thing was going on. There is no better alibi than being out of the entire state.

Regarding the statements that it was suspicious Branion's own gun and ammo were used: the gun (and ammo) weren't even supposed to be used. They, in conjuction, were an afterthought. I personally think that too much attention is being paid to them because they weren't even supposed to have been a factor at all.

Well if the guns and ammo were an afterthought as you say, then wouldn't that make these "intruder/s" motive/s leap from robbery to homicide? Since they went out of there way to get a gun and shoot an already incapacitated Donna? That pretty much rules out the robbery motive, does it not? And you don't find it the least bit odd that four and only four slugs are missing from the ammunition box?

Whoever did this attempted to strangle Donna, and it was only when that didn't work, that they went for a gun. They didn't bring a gun because they didn't plan on using one.

Then why in the world shoot the lady four times?! If the motive was to rob the Branion residence, after strangling Donna, why didn't these people just get what they were there for and leave? Why go back and shoot her four times, and then "rooker" her skirt?

So it's natural, because the strangulation didn't work, that they searched the house for a gun or some other weapon.

Sorry...that just doesn't fly with me. Let's assume these people are unknown to the Branion's, and were just seeking out a wealthy residence to burglarize. For one, they had no idea where the guns were located (not to mention the only set of ammo that would work in the gun they were about to use, the PPK). So after they strangled Donna, instead of going to the most logical place any sane person would go to grab an additional weapon (the kitchen, plenty of knives), they instead search around the entire residence for a gun and then the ammo?

Now someone said that it was suspicious that the cord used to strangle Donna came from the Branion house (an iron). I say that is baloney. They wouldn't need to bring a cord with them because just about every household has a plethora of cords (and an upscale house will likely have more as they have more appliances). Heck, the room I'm sitting in right now has literally dozens of cords -- and that's just ONE room of the house.

That's a kind of a stupid thing to do, don't you think? Show up to burglarize a house, unarmed? Without anything? Didn't these people think there was a possibility that someone (neighbor, or even the occupant of the house) was going to see them? And, assuming they didn't bring a weapon because they were not intent on harming someone (and burglary was their only motive), why in turn go seek out a gun and then shoot Donna four times? Overkill?

Glad to see justins5256 back at the forum.

+1. I think I speak for everyone when I say he's been greatly missed.

Thank you both. I will try to come around more often now that I'm almost finished with grad school.

One aspect of this case that has me confused is testimony at Branion's trial from one of his friends. Her testimony was that on the day after Donna's murder, Branion, Shirley, and another friend were at at her apartment. She testified that while she was sitting in the bathroom crying, Branion took Shirley to a back room for a "private conversation". I'm assuming this was brought up to show that Branion was having an affair with Shirley, but that would be an awful big stretch...I wonder why it was ever even brought up at the trial. And apparently, Branion wasn't as forthcoming as he was in later interviews about his affairs, because he denied having one with Shirley around the time of his wife's murder.

I'm not sure if you've seen this, but it might answer your question.

http://leagle.com/decision/197011747Ill2d70_1102.xml/THE%20PEOPLE%20v.%20BRANION

It seems like the defense did not want the possibility of an affair brought up in court AT ALL. They objected every time the subject of Shirley Hudson's relationship with Dr. Branion was raised. Now, Branion would later admit that he was having an affair with Shirley but, according to him, Donna knew about it, Shirley knew about Donna, and the relationship was mutually accepted by all parties.

My best guess is that not mentioning the affair AT THE TRIAL might have been one of the defense's tactics. They probably didn't want this knowledge to taint the jury's perceptions of Branion in any way.

I forget, but didn't he end up marrying Shirley? Perhaps after he was convicted, he didn't feel a need to keep it secret any longer.

I always wondered about his comments on UM, specifically that the relationship was mutually accepted. It's not impossible. Many married couples do have "open marriages", and I think this is what he was implying.

My problem is he's the only one telling us this. How do we know?

It could be true, but it could also be an excuse or justification for his indiscretions. Not unlike how people who are engaging in affairs often claim their secret love is a "just a friend" or some such.

I forget, but didn't he end up marrying Shirley? Perhaps after he was convicted, he didn't feel a need to keep it secret any longer.

I always wondered about his comments on UM, specifically that the relationship was mutually accepted. It's not impossible. Many married couples do have "open marriages", and I think this is what he was implying.

My problem is he's the only one telling us this. How do we know?

It could be true, but it could also be an excuse or justification for his indiscretions. Not unlike how people who are engaging in affairs often claim their secret love is a "just a friend" or some such.

I've read an article where it said that Donna knew of his affairs, but since she feared losing her social status and fearful of having a negative stigma of divorce over her head, she just put up with them. And yes Branion married Shirley after Donna's murder.

Does anyone else (regardless of how you feel about whether or not Branion was involved with his wife's murder) find it odd that Branion did not take the stand in his own defense? He had a decent alibi, a near impossible time frame to commit the murder, etc. Why didn't he take the stand? I think a lot of people felt Branion was railroaded based off of the sole fact that the timeline proves he couldn't have murdered Donna. The judge was crooked, jury may or may not have been prejudiced, etc. But when looking at the totality of the circumstances in this case, I just cannot come to the conclusion that he was railroaded. He was the one who should have taken the stand to confront these little discrepancies in his account, provide explanations that were needed, but he didn't. If anyone were to blame for the conviction, I would say that it should be placed squarely on Branion and his defense team. They focused too much on the timeline aspect, and not on other important, nagging pieces of circumstantial evidence that did not paint Branion as innocent.

Does anyone else (regardless of how you feel about whether or not Branion was involved with his wife's murder) find it odd that Branion did not take the stand in his own defense? He had a decent alibi, a near impossible time frame to commit the murder, etc. Why didn't he take the stand? I think a lot of people felt Branion was railroaded based off of the sole fact that the timeline proves he couldn't have murdered Donna. The judge was crooked, jury may or may not have been prejudiced, etc. But when looking at the totality of the circumstances in this case, I just cannot come to the conclusion that he was railroaded. He was the one who should have taken the stand to confront these little discrepancies in his account, provide explanations that were needed, but he didn't. If anyone were to blame for the conviction, I would say that it should be placed squarely on Branion and his defense team. They focused too much on the timeline aspect, and not on other important, nagging pieces of circumstantial evidence that did not paint Branion as innocent.

It's possible that Branion may have been advised not to take the stand by his defense team, so that may have been a critical error on the attorneys' part and not necessarily Branion's. After all, he's a physician, not a lawyer.

Regarding the statements that it was suspicious Branion's own gun and ammo were used: the gun (and ammo) weren't even supposed to be used. They, in conjuction, were an afterthought. I personally think that too much attention is being paid to them because they weren't even supposed to have been a factor at all. Whoever did this attempted to strangle Donna, and it was only when that didn't work, that they went for a gun. They didn't bring a gun because they didn't plan on using one. So it's natural, because the strangulation didn't work, that they searched the house for a gun or some other weapon. Now someone said that it was suspicious that the cord used to strangle Donna came from the Branion house (an iron). I say that is baloney. They wouldn't need to bring a cord with them because just about every household has a plethora of cords (and an upscale house will likely have more as they have more appliances). Heck, the room I'm sitting in right now has literally dozens of cords -- and that's just ONE room of the house.

I do think it's suspicious that the cord used to strange Donna came from the home. Even common burglars usually bring some kind of break-and-enter kit with them, and that may include crowbars and the like. Chances are good that a random intruder would have at least one item with which to manipulate a door or window.

Also, Donna would know that house better than someone breaking into it for the first time. She would have the advantage of knowing where weapons and objects capable of being repurposed as weapons would be, not the intruder. I don't see a person breaking into a home unequipped to contend with any individuals or animals that might be there.

I can definitely understand not bringing a firearm, but I have trouble understanding not bringing any tools whatsoever to commit a break-and-enter and possible burglary--or especially a rape and/or murder.

Various people on here, researchers, experts and even judges have testified that there is no way on God's green Earth Branion could have done this himself given the conditions and time allotted. I am in full agreement with that. And since there is ZERO evidence that he hired a hit man (but plenty of speculation) I cannot understand at all why he was convicted.


Definitely agree with this.

John made regular trips to Indiana during the time period. If he hired a hit man, surely he could have arranged it so that he was out of state while the whole thing was going on. There is no better alibi than being out of the entire state.

Good point.

This case keeps getting stickier and stickier for me.

It's possible that Branion may have been advised not to take the stand by his defense team, so that may have been a critical error on the attorneys' part and not necessarily Branion's. After all, he's a physician, not a lawyer.

Yeah, I would tend to think he was advised by his legal team not to, but I just can't understand why.

Yeah, I would tend to think he was advised by his legal team not to, but I just can't understand why.

If he decided not to testify based on his attorney's advice, my guess would be because of the cross examination.

Once he's on the stand, the prosecutor also gets to question him. If the questions went in the direction of his infidelity or some other negative activity, the jury would not have looked favorably on him at all. Back then (and sometimes even now) people think that someone cheating on their spouse is easily capable of murder, even if the worse thing they've ever done is cheat.

If he decided not to testify based on his attorney's advice, my guess would be because of the cross examination.

Once he's on the stand, the prosecutor also gets to question him. If the questions went in the direction of his infidelity or some other negative activity, the jury would not have looked favorably on him at all. Back then (and sometimes even now) people think that someone cheating on their spouse is easily capable of murder, even if the worse thing they've ever done is cheat.

That's a good point about the infidelity tainting the image of Branion to the jury.

Anyone else ever read the statistical probability that Branion's defense team brought forth? It's quite confusing...

"Branion insists, it would still be exceedingly improbable that he could have killed his spouse--so unlikely that no sane person could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Branion starts from the ranges of time offered for driving (6 to 12 minutes) and forming bruises (15 to 30 minutes) and submits that the likely times were in the middle of those ranges. A time at the low end of each range--which Branion thinks necessary to make the crime possible--was correspondingly unlikely: a probability of "less than 0.01" in each case, Branion says. The probability that the low end of each range would occur back-to-back is 0.01 X 0.01 = 0.0001. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means a probability much greater than the 0.51 more-likely-than-not standard;5 a probability of 0.0001 that the accused did it is so far away from "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the federal court must issue the writ.

The first task is to specify the minimum time Branion needed, not the minimum possible time. The jury could have found that 30 minutes lapsed between Branion's leaving the Hospital and his call to the police. We therefore should like to know the probability that the combination of travel and murder times came to 30 minutes or less; Branion has offered only his view of the probability that the time came to 21 minutes or less. He produced even this figure by a method that is proper only if the probability of the 6-minute drive and the 15-minute bruise are independent events. Yet on the state's hypothesis of a planned murder, they are anything but independent.

That's not all. Branion assumed that the distribution of driving and bruise-forming times is Gaussian (that is, characterized by a normal bell-shaped curve centered on the mean of the distribution). He derived the probability of a six-minute drive beginning with the calculation of a mean of 9 minutes, from the average of the extreme times (6 and 12). He then added the assumption that the standard deviation is one minute, leading to the conclusion that a travel time of six minutes, three standard deviations from the mean, will happen less than one time in a hundred. Where did this mean and standard deviation come from? The range of 6 to 12 minutes is from a series of six trials in 1968. We know that a driving time of 6 minutes was achieved at least once in six runs, not (as Branion's calculation implies) once in a hundred. For all this record reveals, the six trials came out with times of 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, and 12 minutes. A calculation based on a mean driving time of nine minutes, with a standard deviation of one minute, would produce a bizarre conclusion. Nothing suggests a Gaussian distribution or the absence of skewness. As for the pathologist's range of 15 to 30 minutes for bruise formation: this was a number from the air, and we have no idea what the mean time or standard deviation might be.

That's still not all. Even if the time sequences are independent, even if we are interested in the probability that the driving plus choking time is 21 minutes or less, even if the distributions are Gaussian, the probability is very sensitive to the assumed standard deviation. On Branion's assumptions, the probability is 0.1% rather than 0.01% as Branion believes; on more plausible assumptions, the probability is 10%. The proof appears in the margin.7 Since this probability reflects a series of assumptions generally favorable to Branion (though implausible individually and collectively), the statistical argument that the jury was compelled to find him innocent collapses."

That's a good point about the infidelity tainting the image of Branion to the jury.

Anyone else ever read the statistical probability that Branion's defense team brought forth? It's quite confusing...

Riiiiiight.....

Look, I get the gist of what they are trying say but if they can't break that down and make it less confusing for a jury, I think it means trouble. It's things like this and their botching the affair issue that makes it appear, to me at least, that Branion didn't get the greatest counsel...

Riiiiiight.....

Look, I get the gist of what they are trying say but if they can't break that down and make it less confusing for a jury, I think it means trouble. It's things like this and their botching the affair issue that makes it appear, to me at least, that Branion didn't get the greatest counsel...

Whew, I agree. That was atrocious.

Well if the guns and ammo were an afterthought as you say, then wouldn't that make these "intruder/s" motive/s leap from robbery to homicide? Since they went out of there way to get a gun and shoot an already incapacitated Donna? That pretty much rules out the robbery motive, does it not? And you don't find it the least bit odd that four and only four slugs are missing from the ammunition box?

I don't know what their intentions were. Unfortunately, witnesses are frequently killed because they can identify the perps.


Then why in the world shoot the lady four times?! If the motive was to rob the Branion residence, after strangling Donna, why didn't these people just get what they were there for and leave? Why go back and shoot her four times, and then "rooker" her skirt?

Again, she can identify them.

Sorry...that just doesn't fly with me. Let's assume these people are unknown to the Branion's, and were just seeking out a wealthy residence to burglarize. For one, they had no idea where the guns were located (not to mention the only set of ammo that would work in the gun they were about to use, the PPK). So after they strangled Donna, instead of going to the most logical place any sane person would go to grab an additional weapon (the kitchen, plenty of knives), they instead search around the entire residence for a gun and then the ammo?

Earlier, I had incorrectly stated that the $500 was kept in a dresser in the living room. It was not. It was kept in a nightstand in the master bedroom. And come to think of it, that makes more sense as John probably left it there so the kids wouldn't get at it. In any event, while I don't know the exact and full layout of the Branion apartment, I do believe the master bedroom was right next to the laundry room where Donna was found. Or at least closer in proximity to it then the living room, front entrance and kitchen.

One possible theory I have is that the robbers asked for cash and Donna led them to the bedroom where it was kept. It is at around this time, things get out of hand and somebody makes a grab for the gun and ammo, which are nearby.

That's a kind of a stupid thing to do, don't you think? Show up to burglarize a house, unarmed? Without anything? Didn't these people think there was a possibility that someone (neighbor, or even the occupant of the house) was going to see them? And, assuming they didn't bring a weapon because they were not intent on harming someone (and burglary was their only motive), why in turn go seek out a gun and then shoot Donna four times? Overkill?

The segment depicted two assailants. I think it was probably at least this many. Honestly, how much of a fight could a short housewife put up against multiple males? I do think Donna probably put up a pretty good fight for her life, but the odds overcame her eventually. I think it's entirely plausible (heck, likely) they did bring tools to get in the house, but found the one door unlocked and just got in that way, thus explaining the no sign of forced entry.

I mentioned earlier that John's car was in the shop and he was using Donna's car. I think it's possible that someone was staking out the Branions for some time beforehand and got a feel for who drove what. When they saw that neither car was there that day, they figured they were both out. It's possible they didn't bring any guns or weapons because they never planned on using them. This may jibe more with the theory that someone wanted John's doctor files: they figured they would get in quickly, take them, and get out. And things got out of hand.

I mentioned earlier that John's car was in the shop and he was using Donna's car. I think it's possible that someone was staking out the Branions for some time beforehand and got a feel for who drove what. When they saw that neither car was there that day, they figured they were both out.

I was thinking about this, too, and I agree it's very plausible.

It's possible they didn't bring any guns or weapons because they never planned on using them. This may jibe more with the theory that someone wanted John's doctor files: they figured they would get in quickly, take them, and get out. And things got out of hand.

The only problem I see with this is that physicians almost without exception keep patient records at the clinic, hospital, or office, not their homes.

I don't know what their intentions were. Unfortunately, witnesses are frequently killed because they can identify the perps.

Ok, so now the intruders were known to the Branion's. Shouldn't they have known that, since Donna was a housewife, that she would have been home that day? And I agree that they could have feared being identified so they killed her. But it's a big leap to say they would have rummaged through two different locations to find a gun and the only ammo that would have worked in that gun. Knives were probably readily available in the kitchen, and would have made less noise. And again, Branion told police he kept his PPK locked in a safe. When they arrived that day, the safe was locked. When they returned over a month later with a warrant, they opened the safe and found the extra clip, the target, and the brochure, but no PPK. Either the perps left with the PPK, or Branion dumped it at a later date.

Again, she can identify them.

Using a gun increases the chances that they would get caught. Four shots is not a good way to kill Donna and quietly slip away.

One possible theory I have is that the robbers asked for cash and Donna led them to the bedroom where it was kept. It is at around this time, things get out of hand and somebody makes a grab for the gun and ammo, which are nearby.

The gun and ammo were in two different locations, though. The ammo was in a closet in a utility room. And again, if things got out of hand, why were the killers calm and precise enough to remove four slugs from the box, and then shoot Donna exactly four times? And, an often overlooked part about the ammo, the killers were polite enough to put the ammo box back in the bag and then back into the closet before leaving.

The segment depicted two assailants. I think it was probably at least this many. Honestly, how much of a fight could a short housewife put up against multiple males? I do think Donna probably put up a pretty good fight for her life, but the odds overcame her eventually. I think it's entirely plausible (heck, likely) they did bring tools to get in the house, but found the one door unlocked and just got in that way, thus explaining the no sign of forced entry.

But if they had tools (crowbar, most likely) why not use this as a weapon to incapacitate or threaten Donna?

I mentioned earlier that John's car was in the shop and he was using Donna's car. I think it's possible that someone was staking out the Branions for some time beforehand and got a feel for who drove what. When they saw that neither car was there that day, they figured they were both out. It's possible they didn't bring any guns or weapons because they never planned on using them. This may jibe more with the theory that someone wanted John's doctor files: they figured they would get in quickly, take them, and get out. And things got out of hand.

That's a good point about the cars. But I still have a hard time buying that if these guys were set on robbery and no form of violence whatsoever, why did they feel the need to seek out a gun and shoot Donna four times? If one or both of the intruders could have been id'ed by Donna, why resort to violence when they discovered she was home? Why not say, oh you're door was unlocked, we didn't know you were home, etc.

What bothers me is that the proseuction's belief of 'we believe John is guilty in some capacity' but not being certain in what role he played and nevertheless got a conviction out of it. Truth be told, it's quite easy to say that John is guilty in some fashion, but I have broken down each possibility and have given my reasons why each is unlikely.

The time to commit the crimes simply isn't there. I have elaborated on that, and will continue to elaborate on it in future posts. I also don't believe a person who has pulled a trigger on a gun will voluntarily suggest to be given a sodium nitrate test.

The evidence on the hitman theory isn't even low. It's non-existent.

To be proven guilty in a court of law, you have to have motive, means and opportunity. John, whom the jury believed actually pulled the trigger, did not have the opportunity or the means, and the motive is shaky at best.

I do not and will never understand why the jury convicted him, unless they know of something that I don't. Whether a person believe in John's innocence or guilt, I hope everyone can agree he should have gotten a new trial: the trial he got was filled with prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective defense counsel, a corrupt judge and a biased jury (the guy that knew him).

For everything that I've mentioned, discussion seems to be keep turning back to that gun. What I have to ask is: Would John shoot Donna 4-7 times and not worry that the neighbors would hear and investigate and if he is the only one seen exiting the apartment, they would think he's guilty? Who is more likely to have shot Donna that many times?

A) John Branion, who was known to the neighborhood
B) strangers who weren't from the area that may have had ski masks or something else concealing their identity and wouldn't have been nearly as identifiable.

When somebody is shot that many times, the shooter must realize that neighbors will wonder what the heck is going on.

The evidence on the hitman theory isn't even low. It's non-existent.

Actually, the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong against Branion, to suggest he was involved in his wife's murder somehow. Granted, he's shown how near impossible it would have been for him to have been the actual triggerman, but provides no other explanation for the evidence against him. You say there is no evidence on the hitman theory, but is there really evidence for the random intruder theory? No witnesses see any suspicious looking characters around the neighborhood, no cars speeding off shortly after the gunshots, etc.

For everything that I've mentioned, discussion seems to be keep turning back to that gun. What I have to ask is: Would John shoot Donna 4-7 times and not worry that the neighbors would hear and investigate and if he is the only one seen exiting the apartment, they would think he's guilty? Who is more likely to have shot Donna that many times?

A) John Branion, who was known to the neighborhood
B) strangers who weren't from the area that may have had ski masks or something else concealing their identity and wouldn't have been nearly as identifiable.

When somebody is shot that many times, the shooter must realize that neighbors will wonder what the heck is going on.

You forgot strangers that Branion may have hired to kill his wife. If their identities were concealed, this means murdering Donna was kind of a moot point, right? They already had her incapacitated, they could have left. Shooting her four times shows that whoever shot her, wanted her dead. Random intruders intent on burglary would have no reason to want her dead (especially if the tried to conceal their appearance).

Anyone know if this case ever aired on the Farina UM? Been DVRing them and have not run across it.

Anyone know if this case ever aired on the Farina UM? Been DVRing them and have not run across it.

I've stopped DVRing the Farina episodes a long time ago, but I do remember seeing the Branion segment one time. It was a "rarity" in the Farina episodes.

Random fact, Joby Branion, wasnt his biological son. He was adopted. It's mentioned in this article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/locked-out-nfl-agent-joby-branion-draws-strength-from-past-to-advise-football-stars/2011/04/19/AFongkdE_story.html

Just saw this one again last night. One thing that's always bugged me is about how the UM segment tried to play up the "injustice" received by Branion and the whole "he needs a heart transplant but he can't get one because he's a convict" angle they tried for sympathy. The segment implies that he's been rotting away at prison for years, but the reality was that at the time the segment was filmed, he had only be incarcerated since 1983. Then his sentence was commuted shortly after the segment aired. Branion didn't even serve 7 years in jail. Virtually nothing is made of him skipping out of his sentencing and living on the lam for 12 years. Branion's reaction to the theory that he hired someone to kill his wife was very telling.

I am still not convinced of Branion's guilt. I am not saying he is for sure innocent, only he and God know that. I can see why Branion was a suspect but there was great difficulty placing him at the scene or finding that he had hired someone.

I guess the difficulty I had believing his guilt was more so in that why do it? His wife knew about his affair and had not divorced him for it, granted it was the time before no fault divorce but honestly, Branion could have easily divorced her had he wanted to and his affair was basically an open secret so it wasn't like his reputation would be severely tarnished.

His going on the lamb is what made him look bad and that was only after his appeal was denied and that was 3 years after his conviction that he fled as he had been allowed to remain free on an appeal bond which was much more common at that time. However after the U.S. Supreme Court turned down his appeal in 1971 he knew he would be ordered to report to prison so he took off.

However of course the heart transplant angle was played up, but really even if he had not been in prison it is highly likely he would have ultimately still passed away from his medical condition. The segment portrayed Dr. Branion in a more sympathetic light than many may like but I felt that the timing did not fit him killing his wife. Why go to the nursery school to pick up his son if the purpose was to create an alibi when he could have just stayed at his clinic which would have been way less suspicious?

I guess the difficulty I had believing his guilt was more so in that why do it? His wife knew about his affair and had not divorced him for it, granted it was the time before no fault divorce but honestly, Branion could have easily divorced her had he wanted to and his affair was basically an open secret so it wasn't like his reputation would be severely tarnished.

From what I remember, Branion wanted to divorce Donna so he could marry Shirley, but Donna did not want to go through with the divorce because she feared it would affect her social status and carry the negative stigma of being a divorced mother. Branion was also going to be indicted in an illegal abortion ring, but the woman who was set to testify against him died before the trial was to begin. That's another little convenient tidbit left out of UM. Plus he was constantly taking "vacations" with other women, leaving Donna home alone with the children.

However of course the heart transplant angle was played up, but really even if he had not been in prison it is highly likely he would have ultimately still passed away from his medical condition. The segment portrayed Dr. Branion in a more sympathetic light than many may like but I felt that the timing did not fit him killing his wife. Why go to the nursery school to pick up his son if the purpose was to create an alibi when he could have just stayed at his clinic which would have been way less suspicious?

It wasn't only the heart transplant angle, they also played up the personal physician civil rights movement hero who couldn't possibly have murdered his wife angle that grated on me. He went to the nursery school to pick up his son, and then went to pick up a friend who was supposed to go to lunch with the Branion's. She bailed at the last minute. Not so coincidentally, Branion called this woman late the night prior to set up the lunch date. IMO, he was calling her so he could have someone with him besides his son to "discover" Donna dead.

Those things make him a bad husband a sleaze and maybe an unethical doctor but I am more concerned about the evidence adding up to a conviction and while he was convicted, it didn't mean legally it should have stood up. The angle was played up the civil rights icon angle and yes I disliked that too. However 1967, 1968 was a very turbulent time all over this country, and particularly in Chicago. Plus lets face it, Chicago PD never does themselves any favors.

It's always been my gut feeling that he was guilty directly or indirectly. Maybe the case was circumstantial at best and he should of been found not guilty.

I too would have a hard time convicting Branion if it wasn't for the Walther PPK gun that he forgot to mention was missing, and the 4 missing slugs from his ammunition box found in his closet.

I too would have a hard time convicting Branion if it wasn't for the Walther PPK gun that he forgot to mention was missing, and the 4 missing slugs from his ammunition box found in his closet.
lol I may need to pay attention to that part.

I too would have a hard time convicting Branion if it wasn't for the Walther PPK gun that he forgot to mention was missing, and the 4 missing slugs from his ammunition box found in his closet.

I agree. Either Branion was guilty, or he has the same bad luck as Tim McClure. :D

Seriously, though, I can't buy the "oh, the gun was just stolen this morning but I forgot to tell people" story. I'm not convinced he pulled the trigger, but I think he had something to do with it. I also think he was a horrible person for how he conducted his life. Those two things are mutually exclusive, though.

With that said, I'm not sure he should have been convicted based on the evidence presented. I just don't buy his "I am an innocent man who's been framed" story.

From day one, I've always believed that Branion did not commit the murder himself, but my gut tells me that he hired somewhat to do it. I don't hold the fact that he would not take a lie detector test against him, but I find it very strange that he followed this request up by volunteering to take a nitrate test. If the police had asked him about it, that would be one thing, but Branion brought it up himself completely out of the blue. I can't think of another example of a murder suspect flat-out asking the police to give him a nitrate test. It just sounded like he was trying way too hard to prove he couldn't have fired a gun that day.

All that being said, this was technically a wrongful conviction, IMHO, since Branion was not put on trial for hiring someone to kill his wife, but for committing the crime himself and I don't think he would have had enough time to do so. And there's no direct evidence that he hired anyone to murder his wife either, other than the highly suspicious nature of the missing gun and slugs. As Final Appeal segments go, this is definitely the murkiest one since I think Branion was guilty of something, but not necessarily the crime he was actually convicted for.

From day one, I've always believed that Branion did not commit the murder himself, but my gut tells me that he hired somewhat to do it. I don't hold the fact that he would not take a lie detector test against him, but I find it very strange that he followed this request up by volunteering to take a nitrate test. If the police had asked him about it, that would be one thing, but Branion brought it up himself completely out of the blue. I can't think of another example of a murder suspect flat-out asking the police to give him a nitrate test. It just sounded like he was trying way too hard to prove he couldn't have fired a gun that day.

All that being said, this was technically a wrongful conviction, IMHO, since Branion was not put on trial for hiring someone to kill his wife, but for committing the crime himself and I don't think he would have had enough time to do so. And there's no direct evidence that he hired anyone to murder his wife either, other than the highly suspicious nature of the missing gun and slugs. As Final Appeal segments go, this is definitely the murkiest one since I think Branion was guilty of something, but not necessarily the crime he was actually convicted for.
+1

From day one, I've always believed that Branion did not commit the murder himself, but my gut tells me that he hired somewhat to do it. I don't hold the fact that he would not take a lie detector test against him, but I find it very strange that he followed this request up by volunteering to take a nitrate test. If the police had asked him about it, that would be one thing, but Branion brought it up himself completely out of the blue. I can't think of another example of a murder suspect flat-out asking the police to give him a nitrate test. It just sounded like he was trying way too hard to prove he couldn't have fired a gun that day.

All that being said, this was technically a wrongful conviction, IMHO, since Branion was not put on trial for hiring someone to kill his wife, but for committing the crime himself and I don't think he would have had enough time to do so. And there's no direct evidence that he hired anyone to murder his wife either, other than the highly suspicious nature of the missing gun and slugs. As Final Appeal segments go, this is definitely the murkiest one since I think Branion was guilty of something, but not necessarily the crime he was actually convicted for.

Bingo -- we have a winner! Very well said, RobinW. I completely agree.

Maybe you could start a second podcast for people who weren't convicted cleanly, but are probably still guilty. You could call it "The Trail Went Luke-Warm." :lol:

You could call it "The Trail Went Luke-Warm." :lol:

https://i.imgflip.com/gj5f4.jpg

Let's also not forget in Dr. Branion's case the prosecutor himself admitted his case was weak. That is not good. Rarely do you see a prosecutor publicly admit that and the fact he thought that basically meant he shouldn't have been prosecuting it.

Bingo -- we have a winner! Very well said, RobinW. I completely agree.

Maybe you could start a second podcast for people who weren't convicted cleanly, but are probably still guilty. You could call it "The Trail Went Luke-Warm." :lol:

:lol: I honestly would love to do an episode on this case since it's so complex. It's technically closed, but if the murder-for-hire theory is correct, then someone else out there still got away with murder.

I will admit I did find it a bit troubling that the prosecutor did acknowledge in his UM interview that Branion could have hired someone to kill his wife in spite of the fact that he prosecuted him for committing the murder himself.

I will admit I did find it a bit troubling that the prosecutor did acknowledge in his UM interview that Branion could have hired someone to kill his wife in spite of the fact that he prosecuted him for committing the murder himself.

Yeah. I always thought that was bizarre. Realistically, that was probably the only way to close it though. More like following the spirit of the law rather than the intent.

Just re-watched this now. I don't think he actually pulled the trigger, but I could absolutely see him hiring someone to kill his wife. I have no sympathy for that selfish whore, the way he acted like a man cheating was just natural and fine. Apparently, he was all about respect and fair treatment except when it came to women.

However, legally, they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion, that he himself killed her. They really should've looked into murder for hire, because whoever actually pulled the trigger should be imprisoned. That woman deserved justice.

Hi Everyone,
Today I was surfing the web and Googled John Branion. I came up with this interesting link to a July 1984 article in Ebony magazine, and I am pasting the link here. I hope it comes up. it goes more in depth into Branion's life in Africa, and his associations with the famous and the infamous: Idi Amin, Stokely Carmichael, singer Miriam Makeba. The article even features photographs of Branion in Africa...he fled to many countries, including Algeria, the Sudan, Nigeria, and ghana. Supposedly he fled the United States by using the name and identity of a dead friend, Albert McCoo. I also think that Branion and Shirley had about 2 more children.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CcAR4NQM2ssC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Shirley+branion&source=bl&ots=Uxy-w9NEZk&sig=KS_xpuDXM_OAc_tb4ulo_6MNiXQ&hl=en&ei=2be6S-uKOo7ENd2vhY4H&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Shirley%20branion&f=false

That was an interesting read.

Make up your mind...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...cmdr-apartment

"While appealing his case, the socially well-connected doctor was able to arrange to remain free on a low bond of $5,000. Next, he obtained permission to move to Cheyenne, Wyo., where he married his nurse/girlfriend, divorced her to marry another girlfriend from Chicago, then divorced her to remarry the nurse, whom he divorced again to remarry the second girlfriend

Make up your mind...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...cmdr-apartment

"While appealing his case, the socially well-connected doctor was able to arrange to remain free on a low bond of $5,000. Next, he obtained permission to move to Cheyenne, Wyo., where he married his nurse/girlfriend, divorced her to marry another girlfriend from Chicago, then divorced her to remarry the nurse, whom he divorced again to remarry the second girlfriend

That's some pretty quick marriage and divorce work over three years or so.

I'm not sure I'll ever know what to think about John Branion.

I did have this thought, though: the notion that Shirley Branion lost contact with him for nearly all the time he was on the lam abroad as described in Barbara D'Amato's book doesn't smell right to me. I suspect they stayed in close contact.

watched this for the first time on Amazon

while I really wish I could say he was innocent since he was a physician and fought for civil rights, the signs point towards him being involved in some way


Problem with this guy is he just changed his story too much and had a reason to murder his wife due to the affair he was having, the fact he showed little emotion and ended up fleeing overseas and hiding for over a decade speaks volumes.