Kill his wife this is the case. Dr. John Branion was a practicing physician in Chicago in the 1960s, but one day in 1967, he came home to find his house in disarray and his wife*Donna*murdered by persons unknown. The police didn't look far for an answer to the case; they questioned and connected Branion to the murder of his wife despite physical evidence to the contrary, due to his changing story and a mistress named Shirley, who was brought up as a motive and who, in fact, he did subsequently marry. Branion has been swearing to his innocence ever since. In 1971, he fled the country after it appeared his appeal would not be successful. In 1983, he was arrested in Uganda after Idi Amin's fall and sent back to the United States. This also was the Dr for doctor Martin Luther king.

I remember this case well. It always bothered me because seeing the segment when I was younger, I always felt he was innocent. I'm a bit more hesitant today, but I still believe him to most likely be innocent.

Dr Branion has passed away since the segment aired. While I don't recall the exact details, he was released from prison - although I don't think his conviction was exactly overturned- but in any case he died shortly after due to heart complications (heart failure I believe).

As I recall, most evidence seemed to support his innocence. But at least some parts of his story were either changed or just didn't make sense. All in all though, it always seemed to me that the police railroaded him on some very circumstantial evidence.

The main issue that seemed to work against him was the story of the gun. As I recall, he told the police he didn't have a model like the one used (a Walther PPK as I recall), yet he did indeed own one. With that exception, I don't remember any real faking evidence against him. The mistress angle didn't make much sense because he had already been seeing the woman for years and his wife knew about it. I suppose an argument could still rise on that situation at any time, but likely not something that would lead to first degree murder (which is what this almost certainly would have been if Branion did do it).

If indeed innocent, and again I'd say he likely was, this was a sad miscarriage of justice.

As a kid, I thought he was innocent.

As an adult, I think he probably hired someone to kill his wife. I just don't see the motive for two men to break in (and the segment goes out of its way to show how two people had to be involved in the crime), spend several minutes attempting to strangle the wife, and then shooting her repeatedly. I forget how many shots, but it was overkill. Also, they apparently didn't steal anything or attempt a sexual assault. So, what were they doing there?

My best guess (and this has been elaborated better in other, better threads) is that Branion hired these guys to kills his wife. However, they were inept and/or inexperienced. They figured they would try strangling her - and this went on for at least ten minutes according to the pathologist interviewed on UM. That didn't work, so they used Branion's own gun and shells to shoot her, and they panicked and fled.

As a kid, I thought he was innocent.

As an adult, I think he probably hired someone to kill his wife. I just don't see the motive for two men to break in (and the segment goes out of its way to show how two people had to be involved in the crime), spend several minutes attempting to strangle the wife, and then shooting her repeatedly. I forget how many shots, but it was overkill. Also, they apparently didn't steal anything or attempt a sexual assault. So, what were they doing there?

My best guess (and this has been elaborated better in other, better threads) is that Branion hired these guys to kills his wife. However, they were inept and/or inexperienced. They figured they would try strangling her - and this went on for at least ten minutes according to the pathologist interviewed on UM. That didn't work, so they used Branion's own gun and shells to shoot her, and they panicked and fled.

Just speculation of course, but perhaps a botched robbery? Maybe they panicked because she could recognize them so they killed her. Then realizing they had made a lot of noise (especially after gunshots) fled without taking anything. Just a thought.

Just speculation of course, but perhaps a botched robbery? Maybe they panicked because she could recognize them so they killed her. Then realizing they had made a lot of noise (especially after gunshots) fled without taking anything. Just a thought.

The botched robbery scenario is exactly the theory Branion's supporters upheld as what likely happened, as there had been at least one home robbery in the Branion's neighborhood I think something like a week prior to Donna's murder.

I don't know what to make of John Branion. Initially, I actually thought he was probably guilty, adhering to the theory justin outlined above. Then I read Barbara D'Amato's book and wasn't so sure anymore. Then I read it again, and changed my mind back to my original position. I recently re-read the book, and now I don't know what to think.

The main things that I think support Branion's alleged guilt is the fact that the murder weapon probably came from the home. On top of that is that this weapon was a stored handgun--an item perhaps of which only Branion himself maintained security and accountability. The precise number of rounds used to kill Donna were missing from an ammunition box in the home matching the caliber of the Walther PPK.

The main things that I think support Branion's alleged innocence is the timeline discrepancy purported by the original defense team and Tony D'Amato, coupled with the reality that there hasn't yet been a shred of evidence presented to suggest Branion actually did hire someone to kill his wife.

One thing I've always found curious about this case is the discrepancies in several accounts over what handgun Branion handed investigators when asked if he had any firearm in his collection capable of firing a 9 mm round. Walther PPKs fire .380 ACP ammunition, which is also known as 9mm short or 9mm kurz (German for 'short). In UM's version, Branion hands investigators a "Luger pistol" when asked about 9 mm handguns. This type of weapon fires what most gun enthusiasts are talking about when they refer to "9mm ammunition": 9x19 Parabellum, 9mm NATO, or 9mm Luger, all of which refer to the same thing (I know, it's dumb). This would be a perfectly reasonable action on Branion's part, and I would wager most gun enthusiasts would likely do the same thing if asked the same question.

In the state's version, the police ask Branion if he has any firearm capable of firing .380 ACP ammunition, a completely different inquiry than the one given in UM's version. He then hands them a Hi Standard .380 and makes no mention of a Walther PPK--a handgun also capable of firing this round. I've always wondered which version is correct, and I actually surmise both questions were asked of Branion. I think the confusion in the nomenclature surrounding .380 ACP and 9mm ammunition is the reason why.

Walther PPKs were very new to the U.S. market in 1967, and were actually banned a year later under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Furthermore, at the time, these handguns had to be imported from Germany into the United States. It was established that Dr. Branion most certainly received a Walther PPK as a gift in February 1967, and had in his possession most of the accessories that came with that weapon at the time, such as an extra magazine and manufacturer's target. I have a very difficult time believing that the weapon used to murder Donna came from anywhere but the Branion home for these reasons.

Just got playing devious advocate, but wouldn't it be pretty stupid to either plan to kill your wife, or hire someone to do it using your own gun? And then to pull ammo from a box left in the house? Afterwards Branion, if I recall, then noted that he kept the weapons secured or hidden. Seems pretty dumb to implicate himself. And then to be cruel enough to walk in on the scene with his kid to see the whole thing. That's pretty damn cold if you ask me. Even for someone who might have killed his wife, to make the kid walk in on the body, while possible to establish an alibi, just seems overly cruel to the kid. "Hey, see that there? That's your mom. Look. But hey, I didn't do it. You see that? Ok let's go get the police".

If Branion is innocent, I wonder if Donna perhaps knew of the weapon and possibly managed to break away from her attackers long enough to get the gun herself. Then maybe before she could use it it was taken away during a struggle and then used on her?

A bit of a stretch to be sure, but if the attackers had already strangled her, if significant damage to her throat, she may not have been able to yell for help. If her exit was blocked by an intruder, the next logical thing might be to go for a gun in the closet at that point.

Just sayin

I always got the sense he should not have been charged or had charges dropped because of a weak case. Does not mean he was necessarily innocent.

Oh and Meg, your info about the ammo does make a good point. Difficult to tell in the reenactment if they were accurate or not, but the court transcripts would tell for sure.

As we all know, UM wasn't always strictly accurate when it came to reenactments. Especially with props and such. Look at the Circleville letters case. The boobytrap set in the reenactment is a revolver and actually appears to be a rubber or resin dummy or stunt gun. Meaning it is one solid piece that is little more than a toy (looking at it closely, I don't think that cylinder would even turn). But the actual police photo of the pistol used in the booby trap is of an semi automatic pistol. Other than basic size, not even remotely the same gun lol. That one gets me every time because it stands out to me so much. Anyway, off topic, but I think my point is clear lol.

Just got playing devious advocate, but wouldn't it be pretty stupid to either plan to kill your wife, or hire someone to do it using your own gun? And then to pull ammo from a box left in the house? Afterwards Branion, if I recall, then noted that he kept the weapons secured or hidden. Seems pretty dumb to implicate himself. And then to be cruel enough to walk in on the scene with his kid to see the whole thing. That's pretty damn cold if you ask me. Even for someone who might have killed his wife, to make the kid walk in on the body, while possible to establish an alibi, just seems overly cruel to the kid. "Hey, see that there? That's your mom. Look. But hey, I didn't do it. You see that? Ok let's go get the police".

If Branion is innocent, I wonder if Donna perhaps knew of the weapon and possibly managed to break away from her attackers long enough to get the gun herself. Then maybe before she could use it it was taken away during a struggle and then used on her?

A bit of a stretch to be sure, but if the attackers had already strangled her, if significant damage to her throat, she may not have been able to yell for help. If her exit was blocked by an intruder, the next logical thing might be to go for a gun in the closet at that point.

Just sayin

I've stated this before, but I've always found it very odd that when police asked Branion if he'd be willing to take a lie detector test, he immediately replied: "No, but I'd be willing to take a nitrate test". I cannot think of another case where a murder suspect flat-out volunteered to take a nitrate test before the police even asked about it. That sort of thing would probably not even cross most people's minds while they were being questioned, which is why I think Branion hired someone to murder his wife and had always planned to volunteer for a nitrate test in order to prove he never fired a gun that day. The police didn't have the resources to perform a nitrate test at that time, but if they had and the test showed no traces of gunshot residue on Branion's hands, they probably would have had a more difficult time charging him with murder. And without any evidence of him hiring someone to commit the crime, he'd be in the clear.

I've stated this before, but I've always found it very odd that when police asked Branion if he'd be willing to take a lie detector test, he immediately replied: "No, but I'd be willing to take a nitrate test". I cannot think of another case where a murder suspect flat-out volunteered to take a nitrate test before the police even asked about it. That sort of thing would probably not even cross most people's minds while they were being questioned, which is why I think Branion hired someone to murder his wife and had always planned to volunteer for a nitrate test in order to prove he never fired a gun that day. The police didn't have the resources to perform a nitrate test at that time, but if they had and the test showed no traces of gunshot residue on Branion's hands, they probably would have had a more difficult time charging him with murder. And without any evidence of him hiring someone to commit the crime, he'd be in the clear.

Agreed. But again, we don't know if what the reenactment showed was actually how it went down. The lawyer may have suggested it to him before his formal questioning.

As far as being aware of it, I'll be honest, I don't know if they still do nitrate tests for that. I would assume they still do. But I will say that with that crime being in 1967, just a few years earlier in the news footage following JFK's assassination, the reporters were all over the Dallas police asking if they had conducted nitrate tests on Lee Harvey Oswald. So I would suggest that it may have been more commonly mentioned back then, or with Branion being a physician, he might have known more about nitrate testing. Also, the lawyer suggesting it to him makes sense in the context of the lawyer also advising him there on the spot to not take a lie detector test.

This is just one of those cases that can go either way. Personally, I feel that if he was guilty or innocent, he may have been railroaded given racial tensions at the time. If Branion had been white, they may not have prosecuted him with the evidence they had. There was never a smoking gun in this case.

Agreed. But again, we don't know if what the reenactment showed was actually how it went down. The lawyer may have suggested it to him before his formal questioning.

As far as being aware of it, I'll be honest, I don't know if they still do nitrate tests for that. I would assume they still do. But I will say that with that crime being in 1967, just a few years earlier in the news footage following JFK's assassination, the reporters were all over the Dallas police asking if they had conducted nitrate tests on Lee Harvey Oswald. So I would suggest that it may have been more commonly mentioned back then, or with Branion being a physician, he might have known more about nitrate testing. Also, the lawyer suggesting it to him makes sense in the context of the lawyer also advising him there on the spot to not take a lie detector test.

This is just one of those cases that can go either way. Personally, I feel that if he was guilty or innocent, he may have been railroaded given racial tensions at the time. If Branion had been white, they may not have prosecuted him with the evidence they had. There was never a smoking gun in this case.

As far as being aware of it, I'll be honest, I don't know if they still do nitrate tests for that. I would assume they still do. But I will say that with that crime being in 1967, just a few years earlier in the news footage following JFK's assassination, the reporters were all over the Dallas police asking if they had conducted nitrate tests on Lee Harvey Oswald. So I would suggest that it may have been more commonly mentioned back then, or with Branion being a physician, he might have known more about nitrate testing. Also, the lawyer suggesting it to him makes sense in the context of the lawyer also advising him there on the spot to not take a lie detector test.

Good point about the Kennedy assassination. In the pre-Internet and pre-true crime show world of 1967, I wondered if the average citizen would have known much about nitrate tests, but if it was frequently mentioned in the media back then, then I guess it might be more common knowledge.

This is just one of those cases that can go either way. Personally, I feel that if he was guilty or innocent, he may have been railroaded given racial tensions at the time. If Branion had been white, they may not have prosecuted him with the evidence they had. There was never a smoking gun in this case.

I know that during the UM segment, Branion's supporters pushed forward the theory that he might have been framed, given that he was a black man involved in civil rights and had been MLK's physician. But I'm really not sure if he was a prominent enough figure with the enemies who would do something like this.

I know that during the UM segment, Branion's supporters pushed forward the theory that he might have been framed, given that he was a black man involved in civil rights and had been MLK's physician. But I'm really not sure if he was a prominent enough figure with the enemies who would do something like this.

Difficult to say. It was several months prior to King's murder, so I could see some racist cops hoping to damage King's movement. But that is a bit of a stretch.

I do think racism could have come in to play though. I can see a couple of racist cops closing the book on the investigation because he was the spouse and he was black. Sad to say that racism unfortunately did and (even sadder to say) still does play a part in some police officers views.

Personally, I find it disgusting that anyone would ever judge another by the color of their skin, but the possibility can't be ignored, especially given that this happened in the 60's.

In the end though, I just can't picture a scenario where Branion plotting to kill her makes any sense at all. This wouldn't be a "in the heat of the moment" killing because if he is guilty, it was premeditated. Personally I think the burglaries in the area should have been looked into in more detail though.

Difficult to say. It was several months prior to King's murder, so I could see some racist cops hoping to damage King's movement. But that is a bit of a stretch.

I do think racism could have come in to play though. I can see a couple of racist cops closing the book on the investigation because he was the spouse and he was black. Sad to say that racism unfortunately did and (even sadder to say) still does play a part in some police officers views.

I cringe whenever this is brought up with regards to this case. Branion, after he was convicted, remained free on bail for 3 years appealing the case. And when the appeals ran out, he jumped bail in 1971 and fled the country. If this was the case of the justice system railroading a black man, why would this same system let the man, who was convicted by a jury of murdering his wife, let him remain free on bail while exhausting his appeals? Not to mention that these cops were investigating the murder of a black woman. If racism came into play you would think they would've brushed this case aside and not have it solved so quickly by pinning it on her prominent husband.

Difficult to say. It was several months prior to King's murder, so I could see some racist cops hoping to damage King's movement. But that is a bit of a stretch.

I do think racism could have come in to play though. I can see a couple of racist cops closing the book on the investigation because he was the spouse and he was black. Sad to say that racism unfortunately did and (even sadder to say) still does play a part in some police officers views.

Personally, I find it disgusting that anyone would ever judge another by the color of their skin, but the possibility can't be ignored, especially given that this happened in the 60's.

In the end though, I just can't picture a scenario where Branion plotting to kill her makes any sense at all. This wouldn't be a "in the heat of the moment" killing because if he is guilty, it was premeditated. Personally I think the burglaries in the area should have been looked into in more detail though.

:confused:

The main things that I think support Branion's alleged innocence is the timeline discrepancy purported by the original defense team and Tony D'Amato, coupled with the reality that there hasn't yet been a shred of evidence presented to suggest Branion actually did hire someone to kill his wife.


In thinking about the latter, I will concede that I kind of got the vibe the "hired hit" idea was the prosecutor's attempt to save face when confronted with evidence that his time table theory was pretty much fatally flawed from the get go.

His comments on UM about always having some doubt about whether Branion actually pulled the trigger himself, yet still presenting that theory to the jury, never sat right with me.

On the other hand, I figured it may have been one of those instances where the police and the DA realized Branion was, in some way, culpable, yet the hit man theory was too convoluted to present to a jury, so they framed the theory about Branion being the trigger man in order to secure the conviction, thus providing some degree of justice and ultimately closure. It may have been the best they could do under the circumstances.

In thinking about the latter, I will concede that I kind of got the vibe the "hired hit" idea was the prosecutor's attempt to save face when confronted with evidence that his time table theory was pretty much fatally flawed from the get go.

His comments on UM about always having some doubt about whether Branion actually pulled the trigger himself, yet still presenting that theory to the jury, never sat right with me.

On the other hand, I figured it may have been one of those instances where the police and the DA realized Branion was, in some way, culpable, yet the hit man theory was too convoluted to present to a jury, so they framed the theory about Branion being the trigger man in order to secure the conviction, thus providing some degree of justice and ultimately closure. It may have been the best they could do under the circumstances.

Just re-watched this.

He did it. No doubt that he did it. He had the motive, lied about having the gun in which four bullets were found missing from the box, declining a polygraph, but openly agreeing to a nitrate test (as Robin pointed out, he hired someone to kill his wife which is why he had done so), and fleeing to Africa.

I hope Pat Conway is giving John pointers in the afterlife about how to kill your wife more slyly, so that you don't get caught by authorities and can marry your girlfriend.

Actually, they mentioned that he set up to go to lunch with his wife's sister the night before randomly. I think he sat this "lunch" up as to give enough time for the hired muscle to kill his wife and make an escape.

How would a random intruder know about his gun collection, and just take 4 slugs? Feels like it would be a huge waste of time to break in, and search around the house for a gun. Whoever shot her had intimate knowledge of where the guns were at (John, or hired help).

I'm not sure if there were any signs of a break-in, but I'm sure whoever killed her, she knew them, which is why they were able to get in without little trouble.

Interesting case. My sense is he was involved in some way as if he wasn't who did it and why?
My issue with the assassin idea though is if that happened why did he he not produce an airtight timeframe. It was obviously very tight as it was but surely you ensure no wriggle room by either staying in the clinic or once his lunch date bailed going somewhere really public with his child as opposed to going straight back home. He could have potentially walked in on them with his child which seems a huge risk.

Just think if he was completely innocent his life completely changed by not staying an extra 10 minutes at work. Imagine living with that.

Interesting case. My sense is he was involved in some way as if he wasn't who did it and why?
My issue with the assassin idea though is if that happened why did he he not produce an airtight timeframe. It was obviously very tight as it was but surely you ensure no wriggle room by either staying in the clinic or once his lunch date bailed going somewhere really public with his child as opposed to going straight back home. If he did get an assassin he could have potentially walked in on them. Unless they did it later than he requested.

Just think if he was completely innocent his life completely changed by not staying an extra 10 minutes at work. Imagine living with that.

Which to me makes it more so that he is completely innocent. As pointed out, if you go to those links to set up a killing, why not establish a firm alibi rather than a shaky one? I just can’t believe he would go home so soon if he planned it himself. An alibi would be very easy. It was just before Christmas as I recall, so pick up the kid and go Christmas shopping before going home.

Yes, I know he was supposed to be going shopping with his wife as I recall. Well, that’s easy too. All he has to say is that he was getting a gift for her that he didn’t want her to be with him to spoil the surprise. So he buys the gift, makes conversation with someone at the store and boom, instant air tight alibi.

The firearms evidence tends to make me lean guilty.

IIRC, it was determined those four .380 ACP rounds were fired by a Walther PPK. I've brought this up several times, but that weapon would've had to have been imported into the U.S. from Germany at that time, as it wouldn't be domestically produced until the early '80s. That would've commanded a certain amount of effort and cost--one a gun collector and enthusiast might possess, perhaps. Or someone that could afford such a purchase and the necessary shipping, like a physician or someone running in social circles with physicians. Branion's handgun was reportedly a belated birthday gift from a friend and fellow hobbyist.

In other words, I cannot imagine a Walther PPK being an incredibly common weapon in U.S. households during that era. Or even in the criminal subculture.

Furthermore--and perhaps even more damning--exactly four rounds of .380 ACP ammunition were missing from the only box of that kind of round in the Branion household.

Don't look good for the ol' doc, I should say.

Still, I have questions to which I've never really received satisfactory answers, and perhaps never will without access to a LOT more information than what's currently on the internet.

Which to me makes it more so that he is completely innocent. As pointed out, if you go to those links to set up a killing, why not establish a firm alibi rather than a shaky one? I just can’t believe he would go home so soon if he planned it himself. An alibi would be very easy. It was just before Christmas as I recall, so pick up the kid and go Christmas shopping before going home.

Yes, I know he was supposed to be going shopping with his wife as I recall. Well, that’s easy too. All he has to say is that he was getting a gift for her that he didn’t want her to be with him to spoil the surprise. So he buys the gift, makes conversation with someone at the store and boom, instant air tight alibi.

I;m starting to feel this way as well. He is obviously not a dumb man. You think if he was going to hire people to kill his wife he would make sure it happens at a time where he is away from his home and has an airtight alibi. Branion is a man of bad characters thanks to his numerous infidelities, but I am starting to think he is likely not a murderer and was railroaded.

I always thought that he was guilty. He came across as someone who thought that they were smarter than everyone else. if he didn't pull the trigger himself he had it done. Money and status kept him out of jail for 3 years while on appeal. he is was a black or white garbage man they would have hauled him off right after court.

Arrogant people do stupid things, sure and they get sloppy too. For me, it's a pretty big leap of logic though to say he was *so arrogant* that he threw every shred of smarts & common sense out the window by 1) creating such a flimsy alibi and 2) passing off his own weapon to the hitmen (a weapon, which at the time, was so rare, it would've pretty much signed his name to the act)

Also - were the state's claims about the bullets (that they could've been fired by a PPK and that they did come from Branion's personal stash) ever substantiated?? If they never were, I'd say that lends more credence to the fact he was railroaded. In the UM wiki entry, it says "prosecutors claimed.........." in relation to these two issues - it doesn't state that those points were proven at all.

1) creating such a flimsy alibi and 2) passing off his own weapon to the hitmen (a weapon, which at the time, was so rare, it would've pretty much signed his name to the act)

Branion's alibi was only flimsy because the person he was due to have lunch with cancelled on him at the last minute. He called this person, an acquaintance, twice the night prior to his wife's murder (once at 10 p.m. and then 11 p.m.) to confirm the lunch date. He went to pick her up for the lunch date (after picking his son up for school) and that's when she cancelled the plans on him. It was literally at the last possible minute. And to top it all off, he had made plans for her to have lunch with him and his wife! IMO, he planned on having her with him when he "discovered" Donna's body so she could bolster his alibi.

With regards to the weapon, his PPK was missing from the residence. There was also evidence that Donna was strangled before being shot. Branion also lied to the police about owning such a gun. Why do that if you're innocent? His brother-in-law was the first person to bring it to LE's attention that he owned a PPK. They also found 2 ammo boxes in Branion's house, which could hold 25 bullets each. The one box had 25, the other had 21. Not so coincidentally, Donna was shot 4 times.

Branion's alibi was only flimsy because the person he was due to have lunch with cancelled on him at the last minute. He called this person, an acquaintance, twice the night prior to his wife's murder (once at 10 p.m. and then 11 p.m.) to confirm the lunch date. He went to pick her up for the lunch date (after picking his son up for school) and that's when she cancelled the plans on him. It was literally at the last possible minute. And to top it all off, he had made plans for her to have lunch with him and his wife! IMO, he planned on having her with him when he "discovered" Donna's body so she could bolster his alibi.

With regards to the weapon, his PPK was missing from the residence. There was also evidence that Donna was strangled before being shot. Branion also lied to the police about owning such a gun. Why do that if you're innocent? His brother-in-law was the first person to bring it to LE's attention that he owned a PPK. They also found 2 ammo boxes in Branion's house, which could hold 25 bullets each. The one box had 25, the other had 21. Not so coincidentally, Donna was shot 4 times.


All good points, but as I noted earlier, if his alibi cancelled on him, why not make a new one that is just as innocent. All he had to do was say he was going Christmas shopping for a gift for his wife. Spend some time at the store talking to the clerk and he has a witness and possibly a receipt to verify he was there. The. Even if he did hire someone to kill her, with what I suggest, he would be able to create an air tight alibi for the time period. It just makes no sense for him to go, “well, my alibi cancelled, I hope those guys are done killing her by now because I’m just gonna go home”.

That makes no sense at all. In spite of how I probably sound, I am on the fence of this one. But I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument that he is guilty

All good points, but as I noted earlier, if his alibi cancelled on him, why not make a new one that is just as innocent. All he had to do was say he was going Christmas shopping for a gift for his wife. Spend some time at the store talking to the clerk and he has a witness and possibly a receipt to verify he was there. The. Even if he did hire someone to kill her, with what I suggest, he would be able to create an air tight alibi for the time period. It just makes no sense for him to go, “well, my alibi cancelled, I hope those guys are done killing her by now because I’m just gonna go home”.

That makes no sense at all. In spite of how I probably sound, I am on the fence of this one. But I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument that he is guilty

His wife was supposed to go out to lunch with Branion and his coworker. If he didn't go immediately home after she cancelled, it would've looked more suspicious since the coworker knew he was supposed to go to lucnh with his wife.

Just re-watched this.

He did it. No doubt that he did it. He had the motive, lied about having the gun in which four bullets were found missing from the box, declining a polygraph, but openly agreeing to a nitrate test (as Robin pointed out, he hired someone to kill his wife which is why he had done so), and fleeing to Africa.

I hope Pat Conway is giving John pointers in the afterlife about how to kill your wife more slyly, so that you don't get caught by authorities and can marry your girlfriend.

It's amazing that these people are so brilliant yet make such stupid mistakes.

How did he do it

Agreed. But again, we don't know if what the reenactment showed was actually how it went down. The lawyer may have suggested it to him before his formal questioning.

As far as being aware of it, I'll be honest, I don't know if they still do nitrate tests for that. I would assume they still do. But I will say that with that crime being in 1967, just a few years earlier in the news footage following JFK's assassination, the reporters were all over the Dallas police asking if they had conducted nitrate tests on Lee Harvey Oswald. So I would suggest that it may have been more commonly mentioned back then, or with Branion being a physician, he might have known more about nitrate testing. Also, the lawyer suggesting it to him makes sense in the context of the lawyer also advising him there on the spot to not take a lie detector test.

This is just one of those cases that can go either way. Personally, I feel that if he was guilty or innocent, he may have been railroaded given racial tensions at the time. If Branion had been white, they may not have prosecuted him with the evidence they had. There was never a smoking gun in this case.

Let's not play the race card here.

Came upon this segment today in my watchthrough and skipped past it. Thing was nearly 30 minutes long.

Just saw this Dr. JB segment (S02) recently. I hate to say it, but I think he may have been guilty of the crime.

Several points:

1) I definitely feel he had a possible motive for the crime. I.e., he was seeing another woman and did end up marrying her after his wife died. Since his wife apparently knew about this affair, it may have been a point of contention in the marriage & it sounds like he probably wanted out. Of course, it seems he easily could have gotten divorced & then married his girlfriend. But, it is possible he hated his wife & wanted her dead.

2) Even though the UM segment made it seem like he wouldn't have had enough time to go home, commit the crime, leave, and then come back later & "discover" the body (due to his busy schedule that morning), I still believe he would have had just enough time to do this.

3) And, as others have said - even if he didn't commit the crime himself, he could have hired others to do this & covered it up.

I guess we'll never know what really happened.

funny I read someone say as a kid they felt he was innocent. I felt the same way too. As a kid, Branion just struck me as a Bill Cosby like figure, (this was way back before all his trouble with the law). He just seemed like a good father, a doctor, civil rights activist just someone to be looked up to and admired. I guess as kids we are naive and tend to look up to certain kinds of people. He just projected this patriarchal admirable image you instinctively looked up to.

But as an adult when you aren't as innocent and naive you have more realistic views of people. rewatching the segment and knowing all the details of the case you kind of saw the truth about him. The guy was clearly a sleezebag, not just because of his infidelities but he also became a person physician to Idi Amin, one of the most brutal dictators ever. Pretty much tells you all you need to know about the guy. I felt like in the interview he came off as really snarky and arrogant too. Expressed no remorse at all for his infidelities, basically acted like it was no big deal, showed no emotion for his wife or anyone for that matter. Once you saw past your childhood delusions he really was not likeable at all.

Whether or not he was guilty of murder though, is another story. I thought the defense did a good job showing he couldn't have been there, but I honestly believe he hired someone to kill her.

What would be the motive though

Just saw this Dr. JB segment (S02) recently. I hate to say it, but I think he may have been guilty of the crime.

Several points:

1) I definitely feel he had a possible motive for the crime. I.e., he was seeing another woman and did end up marrying her after his wife died. Since his wife apparently knew about this affair, it may have been a point of contention in the marriage & it sounds like he probably wanted out. Of course, it seems he easily could have gotten divorced & then married his girlfriend. But, it is possible he hated his wife & wanted her dead.

2) Even though the UM segment made it seem like he wouldn't have had enough time to go home, commit the crime, leave, and then come back later & "discover" the body (due to his busy schedule that morning), I still believe he would have had just enough time to do this.

3) And, as others have said - even if he didn't commit the crime himself, he could have hired others to do this & covered it up.

I guess we'll never know what really happened.

His wife knew about the affair but that didn't mean she approved. If he had divorced her, she may have already told him she wanted alimony, etc.

For the record, I am not so sure of Branion's guilt.

I thought the actor playing the detective in this segment was Ted Levine (Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs). It's not on his imdb profile so I guess the actor just looks a lot like him...

Watching this segment I never understand the defense argument that he could not have done it because he didn't have time. Maybe that's because that angle isn't presented well in the segment. Is anyone convinced he could not have done it because of time?

This was the least convincing Final Appeal segment I can remember -- the defense argument even less convincing than Larry Race's.

One thing they didn't mention is that Branion went on a ski trip to Colorado two days after his wife's death, and took his mistress with him (who later became his wife).

This was the least convincing Final Appeal segment I can remember -- the defense argument even less convincing than Larry Race's.

One thing they didn't mention is that Branion went on a ski trip to Colorado two days after his wife's death, and took his mistress with him (who later became his wife).

They also left out how he became Idi Amin's personal physician after he fled the United States to avoid jail time. The segment paints his flight as some sort of stand that only an innocent person who couldn't receive "justice" would take.

They also left out how he became Idi Amin's personal physician after he fled the United States to avoid jail time. The segment paints his flight as some sort of stand that only an innocent person who couldn't receive "justice" would take.

This begs the question of why UM would run a segment on him then, if the evidence (which I'm sure they had to have known about) was out there and so damning??

This begs the question of why UM would run a segment on him then, if the evidence (which I'm sure they had to have known about) was out there and so damning??

Because of the connection to Martin Luther King, probably. They did a ridiculous RFK segment in the same season.

Because of the connection to Martin Luther King, probably. They did a ridiculous RFK segment in the same season.

That's quite a stretch for him then - from attending to MLK Jr to Idi Amin.

That's quite a stretch for him then - from attending to MLK Jr to Idi Amin.

Yep.

It's also quite the stretch that UM did in painting his flight from prosecution for 12 years as some sort of admirable thing to do.

ETA:

Been digging into the locations of the various spots as well as the time frame given around the time of Donna's murder.

-Branion says that he left his office "by 11:30 a.m." on the day of Donna's murder, before heading over to pick his son up from school, and then pick up Maxine Brown for their lunch date. Maxine cancelled, so Branion took his son and went home. You can see all of the pertinent locations that Branion is alleged to have taken on this (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/5027+S+Prairie+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60615/5480+S+Kenwood+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60615/1369+E+53rd+St,+Chicago,+IL+60615/5054+S+Woodlawn+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60615/@41.8000247,-87.6095463,3333m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m36!4m35!1m15!1m1!1s0x880e2eb329a136d5:0xd79e428780d6f5e1!2m2!1d-87.6190043!2d41.8030556!3m4!1m2!1d-87.6062758!2d41.7969372!3s0x880e2947009d9445:0xe05fa732d569928f!3m4!1m2!1d-87.5997705!2d41.7949887!3s0x880e293f8ca965e1:0xcb332dbad8322645!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e296ca835836d:0xbec2c6a90332178c!2m2!1d-87.5937527!2d41.7957176!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e296c3bf14ead:0x1ca5a3e6316ad33!2m2!1d-87.5923848!2d41.7992803!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e2969b2a594e7:0x4e92f26e04eb29a8!2m2!1d-87.59706!2d41.802693!3e0) map.

-Branion notified the authorities of Donna's death at approximately 11:58 a.m. that day.

-The prosecution contended that after Branion left his office, he drove to his home, murdered Donna, and then went to pick up his son from school, and then had the meeting with Maxine Brown before returning home and "discovering" Donna's body. You can see the pertinent locations from this theory on this (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/5027+S+Prairie+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60615/5054+S+Woodlawn+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60615/5480+S+Kenwood+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60615/1369+E+53rd+St,+Chicago,+IL+60615/5054+S+Woodlawn+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60615/@41.799061,-87.6136662,3333m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m32!4m31!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e2eb329a136d5:0xd79e428780d6f5e1!2m2!1d-87.6190043!2d41.8030556!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e2969b2a594e7:0x4e92f26e04eb29a8!2m2!1d-87.59706!2d41.802693!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e296ca835836d:0xbec2c6a90332178c!2m2!1d-87.5937527!2d41.7957176!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e296c3bf14ead:0x1ca5a3e6316ad33!2m2!1d-87.5923848!2d41.7992803!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e2969b2a594e7:0x4e92f26e04eb29a8!2m2!1d-87.59706!2d41.802693!3e0) map.

-At Branion's trial, his neighbor testified as to hearing "loud sounds" and then a "commotion" at 11:30 a.m. This same neighbor says that she saw Branion on his back porch "15 to 20 minutes" after hearing the loud noises.

-At Branion's trial, a teacher at his son's school says that he arrived between 11:45 a.m. and 11:50 a.m. and remembered Branion having to help his son with his coat.

-On the prosecution's route, Branion would have had to have passed through at least 10 intersections with traffic lights. The average time spent at a traffic light is (https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/red-yellow-green-the-science-behind-traffic-lights/article_d488e07e-abbf-545e-b23e-8c22c223e6fd.html) 1.5 to 2 minutes.

-It would have taken Branion approximately 5 minutes (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/5027+S+Prairie+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60615/5054+S+Woodlawn+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60615/@41.8030536,-87.6074389,1667m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e2eb329a136d5:0xd79e428780d6f5e1!2m2!1d-87.6190043!2d41.8030556!1m5!1m1!1s0x880e2969b2a594e7:0x4e92f26e04eb29a8!2m2!1d-87.59706!2d41.802693!3e0) to get from his office to his home.

-When the police ran the prosecution's route, they maximum amount of time it took them to complete was 12 minutes. The police did not allow any time for Branion to pick up his son, or interact with Maxine Brown.

All of this means that if Branion left his office close to 11:30 a.m., he would have had approximately 20 minutes to make it home, murder Donna, and then arrive at his son's school by 11:50 a.m. This is not impossible as I had once thought. First, Branion is the one who gives the time that he left the office at 11:30 a.m. But what if it was close to 11:20 a.m. or 11:25 a.m.? He would then have arrived at his home to murder Donna at around 11:30 a.m. (the time the neighbor heard the shots) and would have then had to allow approximately 5 minutes of time to go from his home to his son's school. That gives him 15 minutes of time to murder Donna and stage the scene to look like a sexual assault gone wrong. The police did not need to allow for time to pick his son up or to have the meeting with Maxine Brown, because the prosecution's theory was that Donna was already murdered by these points. All of the other times line up after the school sighting, because within 8-13 minutes of picking up Branion's son is when the authorities were notified. And even if you wanted to argue that Branion could have hit traffic lights on the way from his office to his home, that would still give him anywhere from 10-12 minutes of time to carry out the murder.

Basically, if Branion left 5-10 minutes earlier than he says he did, that changes the probability of him being able to carry out the murder drastically. This new timeline would have been as follows:

-Branion leaves his office at 11:20 a.m. and arrives home between 11:25 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.

-Branion murders Donna between 11:25 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., which is the time given by the neighbor as to when she hears the shots.

-Branion shows up at his son's school between 11:45 a.m. and 11: 50 a.m. before eventually returning home and "finding" Donna's body. The same neighbor who heard the shots says she saw Branion "15 to 20 minutes" after she heard the shots on his back porch yelling for help.

The neighbor could be off in her estimations because she never was clear about the exact time when she heard the noises or saw Branion. However, her approximations fit with the prosecutions theory, that Branion had 15-20 minutes of time to leave the home after murdering Donna and hit all of his alibi places before returning back home.