Dr. John Branion's final appeal

[TheCars1986]

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.

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by justins5256

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.

[TheCars1986]

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

[idol]

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

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by justins5256

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.

Originally Posted by justins5256

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.

Originally Posted by justins5256

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.

Originally Posted by justins5256

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.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by justins5256

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.

[idol]

"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...

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[RobinW]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by RobinW

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by justins5256

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.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[amandab1234]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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).