11x30 - A Tight Leash

[bunniefuu]

How did a k*ller
get the security code

of his victim's
home and gain access

to her private photographs?

And how did he know the victim's
whereabouts 24 hours a day?

Encrypted in the
stalker's letters

the answers to those questions
and a whole lot more.

A recent survey found
that 2% of all men

and 8% of all women
in the United States

have been stalked at
some time in their lives.


Hummert never

dreamt she'd be one of them.

Charlene had been married
for more than 20 years,

had three children, and worked
for the State of Pennsylvania

as an administrative assistant.

She was a
great person, real kind,

helped out a lot of
people, religious,

went to church pretty
much every Sunday,

just a good mom, a good friend.

- I remember that she was the
warmest, the most selfless,

most giving person
I've met in my life.

The stalking began
in 2001 when Charlene's husband

Brian found an envelope on
the windshield of his car.

Inside was a recent glamour
photograph of Charlene,

along with a letter.

Here's
proof your wife is a slut.

I had a one-nighter
with your wife.

She made sure my
fiance found out.

I blame your wife for that.

The time is now
right for pay back.

Charlene was dumbfounded.

She denied having an
affair with anyone

and had no idea who sent it.

- I told her she should
go to law enforcement,

because it seemed like it'd
be a pretty serious event.

It seemed to me he had a
lot of time on his hands.

And I believed that this
was not good for Charlene.

Police responded
by putting extra surveillance

on Charlene's house,
but more letters came.

- I was scared for her, and we
had a couple of scares where

we thought we saw
people outside.

Everyone was kind of on high
alert for weeks and months

after that.

There was
very little information

to follow up on at that time.

They had no suspects that
we could go and interview.

We did process the letters
and the photographs

for fingerprints and
not obtain any evidence.

The stalker's next letter

revealed he had information
about her home security system.

- I
- know about the camera.

Your kids' friends
have big mouths.

I know someone's
house code is 7805.

Not surprisingly,
these incidents

caused some tension in
the Hummert's marriage.

And according to Brian,
after one of their arguments,

Charlene stormed out of the
house and didn't return.

Not even her children
knew where she went.

- I called her several times
and couldn't get a hold of her.

And I started getting
really worried.

Local police put
out an all points bulletin

for Charlene's vehicle,
a white Land Rover.

The next day, police found it
in a supermarket parking lot.

Charlene's body was in
the back under a blanket.

She had been strangled to death.

Charlene's family was convinced
the stalker had k*lled her.

At Charlene Hummert's autopsy,
the forensic pathologist

confirmed that
the cause of death

was ligature strangulation.

He also found evidence that
the crime had been staged.

- The fact that her
pants were on backwards

suggests to me that
perhaps she was dressed

after she... after
she was k*lled.

The fact that she was wet, and
the back of the car was not wet

indicates to me that most
likely she'd been outside.

And there
were clues that Charlene

was dead before she was moved.

The mark on her sacral region

or her tailbone
region appear to be

a drag mark for several reasons.

Number one, there was gravel
and dirt embedded into the skin.

Number two, there
was no evidence

of any type of reaction
that would indicate

she was alive when
this occurred.

Investigators sent
the dirt and gravel samples

to two different forensic
labs for analysis.

Unfortunately, neither
one could identify

anything unique
about the sample.

At the crime scene,
supermarket employees

gave police a useful
bit of information.

They had seen Charlene's
car in the parking lot

when they arrived for
work just before dawn.

Investigators
wondered if the k*ller

might have gone
inside the store.

The person who
drove the vehicle would appear

to be suspicious by
dropping the vehicle

off and just walking away.

Anybody who would have
been outside the store

would have thought
that was unusual.

So police checked
the store security cameras

to see everyone who entered
the store before dawn.

And one man looks suspicious.

He was wearing a dark
blue parka, wool hat,

and red gloves, and appeared
to be hiding from the cameras.

Strangely, he made only
one purchase, dog biscuits.

- It's not something
you would normally see.

A person doesn't normally come
in and buy only dog biscuits

at 6 o'clock on a
Saturday morning.

Unfortunately, the image

was so grainy it was impossible
to make an identification.

I was somewhat
frustrated and disappointed

when we received the
surveillance tape that we did

not have a clearer
image of a suspect,

and even more frustrated once
we set it out to laboratories

for enhancement, and we
still couldn't make out

the facial detail that
we were looking for.

So investigators sent the tape

to a licensed photogrammetrist.

Photogrammetry is using a
two dimensional photograph

to create a three
dimensional image.

And it's done with
mathematics and physics.

Fortunately, the security
camera was in a fixed position.

The grocery store provided
the size of their floor tiles.

And the security pictures
showed the suspect's feet

relative to those tiles.

In this particular case,

we have ideal geometry.

That geometry is the grid
pattern of the floor.

His one foot is down.

The other is starting
to move forward.

But we have him
in that position.

We can then erect a vertical
line right up through him.

And if that vertical
line has a scale on it,

then we can
determine his height.

They used the
same security cameras

to photograph a height
chart in the same location

as the suspect.

Using mathematical calculations
made possible by the floor

tiles, Williamson determined
the height of the suspect

was 5 feet, 6 inches tall.

It was very important.

And the reason it's important is
because it allows us to obtain

information that otherwise
would not be obtainable.

Police were convinced
that the soil on Charlene's

body would help identified
the man in the pictures.

Even though two forensic
geologists couldn't find

anything, investigators
asked Skip Palenik,

an internationally known
forensic microscopist,

to take a look.

Yes, well, I've been studying

soil for practically


Palenik's first task was

to separate the dirt
from the clothing fibers.

And he knew just how to do it.

The technique
of using a tuning fork

served two purposes
in this case.

One, it concentrated
all the soil

which was spread out all over
the paper into a small area.

But secondly, it had the effect
of entangling the fibers that

came off of the pants, of
which there were great numbers.

After the clay was
washed from the particles,

Palenik could see he had
an almost perfect specimen.

- Well, the most diverse
suites of minerals that I've

encountered in my
years of looking

through the microscope
at these things.

The particles
contained carborundum

and magnetite, along
with traces of iron.

There was a strong indication

that someone was
working with machinery,

or doing some kind
of grinding, or torch

cutting, something of that sort.

Skip Palenik compared
the dirt on Charlene's clothes

to five different soil
samples, some from Charlene's

neighborhood, others
from further away.

Palenik determined that the
dirt on Charlene Hummert's pants

came from her own driveway.

When I relayed
to Skip that the son did work

on vehicles and do body work
in the driveway of the car,

he replied, well, that's
very consistent with what

I'm finding.

He said, I got a perfect match.

Investigators now knew
that the k*ller was 5 foot, 6

inches tall, wore a dark
parka with red gloves,

and dragged Charlene's body
across her own driveway

after she was dead.

This narrowed the list
of suspects considerably.

Brian Hummert told police that
the last time he saw his wife

Charlene was on a Friday night.

He said their three children
were out with friends,

and the couple got
into an argument

about a parenting issue.

Brian said Charlene left
the house around 10:30 PM

and never returned.

- I came home about 4, 5
o'clock in the morning.

I could see her
walking out on him,

but she wouldn't have
done it without telling

me and my sister and taking
my little brother with her.

With a search warrant, police

looked through
the Hummert's home

and discovered a
piece of red cable

that the family
used as a dog leash.

Interestingly, the pattern
of the cable looked familiar.

There was a metallic contraption

at one portion of this leash
that matched up very well

with an abrasion that
was present in the front

of her neck.

- We concluded that this
red dog leash either

caused the death of Charlene
Hummert o something very

similar in nature was used
to bring about her death.

With this
discovery, Brian Hummert

changed his story.

- Absolutely, 100% no
he didn't, absolutely

did not k*ll his wife.

Through his lawyers, Hummert

claimed that his son David
k*lled Charlene over a dispute

about a car he wanted.

Ridiculous,
I mean, that made me angry,

but it was obvious that that
was the only thing they had was

to try and cast
blame somewhere else.

They didn't have any evidence
that he didn't do it.

- We found that particular
allegation to be preposterous.

Investigators
learned that Charlene

had an excellent relationship
with her three children,

particularly David, her oldest.

If you know
anything about the relationship

between David and
his mother, you

know that just never happened.

I mean, he... he
was relying on her,

and she was relying on him.

Charlene's
relationship with her husband

wasn't as good.

She was not
happy in the marriage.

They were arguing a lot,
and that she was actually

preparing to leave the marriage.

Charlene had left the
marriage once previously,

due to some allegations of abuse
from Brian towards the kids.

But before investigators could

go any further, they
got an anonymous tip.

I received a letter
addressed to me at the police

station from a person
claiming responsibility

for Charlene's m*rder.

The first line of
the letter stated,

I k*lled Charlene
Hummert, not her husband.

And it was signed John.

The writer claimed he
k*lled Charlene when she tried

to end their nine month affair.

She wanted to break it off,

so I broke her neck.

This is the fifth
woman I've k*lled.

I'm getting good at it.

Cops have no idea
how easy it is to pin

the husband when
they only look there.

Investigators sent the letter,

along with the purported
stalker letters,

to forensic linguist
Dr. Robert Leonard

who had an unusual background.

He was a founding member of the
rock 'n' roll group, Sha Na Na

and says that reading
their record contracts

taught him a valuable lesson.

- Seeing how the
contracts could seem

to say one thing but
actually say something else.

So that was really my first
forensic linguistics gig.

When Dr. Leonard
examined the stalker letters

and the serial k*ller
letter sent to the police,

he noticed something odd.

The writer used an
uncommon rhetorical device

known as ironic repetition,
using the same verb in two

consecutive sentences
about changing the context.

- In the serial
k*ller letter it was,

she wanted to break it
off, so I broke her neck.

There's this slight
change for ironic purposes

and cruel humor.

The stalker letter
used the same technique.

- I would have loved
to have found out...

She made sure my
fiance found out.

The use of this device
was so rare Dr. Leonard knew

that the stalker and the serial
k*ller were the same person.

- The odds against these two
letters that sandwich in time

this poor woman's death having
the same rhetorical device,

if it's not the most common
rhetorical device in the world,

was fairly good evidence of
more than accidental connection.

But could forensic linguistics

identify the k*ller?

Pennsylvania law enforcement
asked a forensic linguist

if he could identify
Charlene Hummert's k*ller

just by looking at his letters?

- If you ignore the information
and language evidence,

you are ignoring super
important evidence

that you can use to
solve your cases.

Dr. Leonard
first analyzed

Brian Hummert's known
writing samples.

He didn't find any examples
of ironic repetition,

since most of the
writing samples

were business correspondence.

But he did find something
else that was very unusual.

Like most of us, Hummert
used negative contractions

in his writing,
like, he isn't here.

But, he didn't contract
positive verbs.

He'd write, yes, he is here,
rather than, yes, he's here.

Dr. Leonard found the same
thing in the stalker letters.

There were negative
contractions... "I don't think."

"She can't" and "Almost didn't."

But not the positive ones.

Here is the proof.

"I would have loved."
"I have been following."

- Almost everyone
always uses both.

The writer of the stalker
and serial k*ller letters

did not used both.

They sometimes used
negative contractions,

but they never contracted
the positive verbs.

This tiny
clue gave Dr. Leonard

the identity of the k*ller.

- The only other
person that I ever

found in analyzing people's
grammatical patterns

that did this was the
suspect, Brian Hummert.

The final piece of evidence

came back from the
photogrammetry.

Brian Hummert was 5 foot, 6
inches tall, the same height

as the suspect in
the grocery store.

And investigators found the dark
blue parka in Hummert's office

at work.

Inside the pocket was a
receipt for the dog biscuits.

That reinforced
the linkage of his presence

within that
particular food store

on the early morning
of March 20 of 2004.

That was its significance.

At Brian Hummert's m*rder trial,

prosecutors painted a portrait
of a marriage in trouble.

He saw his
marriage falling apart and that

somehow if he could create a
stalker that it would compel

his wife to turn to
him, and that somehow

he could be the hero.

And that would put things
back on the right track.

But the stalker's letters only

increased problems
in their marriage.

In fact, prosecutors believe
Charlene discovered evidence

that Brian had been sending
the stalker letters.

On the night of the
m*rder, the Hummerts' three

children were out with friends.

Charlene and Brian
got into an argument.

- Brian, I'm... I'm done.

Brian lost control,
grabbed the nearest thing

at hand, the dog leash,
and strangled her to death.

Brian dressed Charlene, but
he put her pants on backwards.

He dragged Charlene's
body out to the car,

collecting the
distinctive soil that

clearly identified the path.

Brian then drove Charlene's car
to the supermarket only a mile

away, close enough so
he could walk home.

He went in the store and
bought some dog biscuits

so he wouldn't look suspicious.

And that's where the security
cameras got his picture.

- That's the old
saying, a picture's

worth a thousand words.

But in this business, it's
worth much more than that.

In October of 2006, a jury

convicted Brian Hummert
of first degree m*rder.

He was sentenced
to life in prison

with no possibility of parole.

- I
- thought, honestly,

that my father
couldn't have done it.

Because he was trying to
make the marriage work.

He was never violent towards my
mother, just towards the kids,

it seemed like.

I don't think he would
have done it at first.

But then eventually I had
it pretty much proven to me.

Investigators
say this is a classic case

of numerous forensic
disciplines coming

together to secure a conviction.

Evidently,
he's never watched any

of y'all's programs
or any of the other

CSI-oriented programs.

Because, I mean, it was almost
too easy for the investigators,

I thought.

- I can't imagine for a moment
that Brian Hummert ever thought

that the way he wrote
his contractions

was going to convict hi.

It's just the last thing
that people ever think of.

I think
what this case marvelously

illustrated was how
one can use building

blocks of various types
of forensic evidence

to paint a picture and to have
a jury reach the conclusion

that we believe
it rightly reached

in this particular case.