Dr. John Branion's final appeal

[MegtheEgg86]

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/1...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.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

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/1...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.

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

[amandab1234]

[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!!!

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86
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 [I

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.

[amandab1234]

Originally Posted by justins5256

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!

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by amandab1234

I love reading your theories/opinions!

Thank you! I try very hard!!

[TheCars1986]

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.

[unsolved88]

Originally Posted by justins5256

Barbara D'Amato wrote a book about the case.

http://www.amazon.com/Doctor-Murder-...7787414&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.

[MegtheEgg86]

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.

[justins5256]

Meg,

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

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

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.

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by justins5256

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.

[WishfulDreamer]

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.