Did Dr. John Branion

[macbeth06]

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.

[Guardian]

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.

[justins5256]

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.

[Guardian]

Originally Posted by justins5256

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.

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by Guardian

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.

[Guardian]

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

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

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.

[Guardian]

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.

[macbeth06]

Originally Posted by Guardian

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

[RobinW]

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.

[Guardian]

Originally Posted by RobinW

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.

[macbeth06]

Originally Posted by Guardian

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.

[RobinW]

Originally Posted by Guardian

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.

[Guardian]

Originally Posted by RobinW

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.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Guardian

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.