Murder by suicide: Judge’s ruling a ‘gut-punch’ in Linda Cummings’ case

Orange County Superior Court

Department C-35

Oct. 9, 2009

Louis Wiechecki, in a suit and tie, sat at the counsel table in Judge Frank Fasel’s eighth-floor courtroom awaiting the most important judicial ruling in his life.

I sat in the gallery, as a spectator without a pen and pad. My editors grounded me after defense attorney John Barnett contended in his motion to dismiss that “this prosecution was not driven by evidence, but by the scrutiny of Larry Welborn.”

My colleague Rachanee Srisavasdi had the reporting assignment. My own emotional stake in the outcome only added to the drama that marks every verdict in every case in every courtroom I’ve ever covered.

Judge Fasel began with a summary of the facts and list of evidence he would be relying upon.

He noted Wiechecki’s role in discovering the body and his use of a manager’s passkey to enter Linda Cummings’ apartment. He detailed the suspicious circumstances confronted by police investigators, including the unusual way the rope was configured and knotted around Linda’s neck. He described how Wiechecki was the primary source telling police that Linda was schizophrenic, paranoid and suicidal.

He recounted how coroner’s investigator Joe Stevens was hesitant to conclude that Linda killed herself – until he made one phone call to Dr. Vincent Mark that convinced him she had previously attempted suicide. And once the death was ruled a suicide, he noted, the involvement of homicide detective Bill Bruns of the Santa Ana Police Department ended.

Fasel also referenced notable lapses in the deputy coroner’s investigation. Stevens did not visit Dr. Mark in person. He did not request written confirmation through medical records of any treatment for depression or other emotional issues, nor did he know if prescription drugs were found in Linda’s apartment.

The judge described the prosecution’s theory – that Linda Cummings was raped and strangled by the defendant after he had sedated her with the drug Thorazine, found in her system during an autopsy, and that Wiechecki had lied to police when he claimed Linda had just been released from psychiatric hospitalization.

He acknowledged that Senior Deputy District Attorney Larry Yellin could present evidence that Linda was happy rather than suicidal, that she was not under a doctor’s care, that she had not been prescribed Thorazine, that she would have been physically incapable of attaching the ropes used to hang herself and that she was already dead when the ropes were applied.

The prosecution had barely contested Wiechecki’s claim that the three-decade delay had cost the defense some evidence. Yellin and Deputy District Attorney Jim Mulgrew had argued instead that delay was justified, because some evidence available now was not available then.

Then the judge pointed out some of the most obvious ways that time had hurt Louie’s case. Dr. Robert Richards, the ”Dr. Quincy of Orange County,” had died during the past three decades. The memories of pathologist Paul Colligan, who performed the first autopsy; Linda’s nurse friend Harriet Neves, and Louie’s first wife Sandy Wiechecki had all been dimmed by the passage of time. Authorities had lost or destroyed key pieces of evidence, including the rape kit, some of Linda’s organs, the rope and crime scene photos.

All of that, Fasel said, was unfair to Wiechecki.

The judge was particularly concerned about the memory of the coroner’s investigator. Stevens had admitted in grand jury testimony to memory problems dating back to 2006 when he suffered a heart attack.

Because Stevens was no longer reliable as a witness about the cause of death or Linda’s mental state, Fasel went out of his way to declare: “The court finds the loss of Joseph Stevens as witness to be highly prejudicial to the defense.”

Fasel addressed Mulgrew’s argument that the 31-year delay from the crime to the arrest was justified by circumstances, including technical and investigative advances in forensic pathology. Dr. Dean Hawley’s expertise in strangulation deaths, for instance, had established that Linda was dead when her neck was put in the noose.

But Fasel disputed the government’s argument that new techniques were required to enable Hawley to link rope marks to a post-mortem hanging.

“The court finds that the prosecution has not established either of the following … that the standards of forensic pathology at the time of Ms. Cummings death precluded prosecution (in 1974) or … that subsequent advancements in that field made it possible in 2005.”

Fasel then focused on Louie’s lies and misinformation. Had he contributed directly to the delayed prosecution by spinning false narratives that misled investigators?

Again, Fasel was skeptical. Detectives knew within a few weeks of Linda’s death – from her friend Harriet Neves – that she was not suicidal. That should have triggered a more determined investigation at the time, the judge said.

The judge regarded Louie’s lies as an excuse for the failures of law enforcement and prosecutors to do a thorough and timely investigation three decades before. He dismissed this prosecution claim as “completely without merit.”

“It appears to the court that there was a failure to fully investigate Ms. Cummings’ death (in 1974) … followed by a decision not to prosecute this case … which led to the destruction of – or failure to obtain, retain and preserve – the relevant physical and documentary evidence.”

Fasel concluded: “The motion to dismiss is granted.”

It was a gut-punch, a disappointment without precedence in my career. Linda’s killer would never face justice. That seemed a tragic reality. It was still sinking in.

Louie celebrated. John Barnett grabbed his hand and told him, “You are free to go.”

But there I was, still numb, the journalist who supposedly goaded and lobbied a veteran prosecutor into filing a flawed murder case 31 years too late.

I was just sitting there watching the killer with a big grin on his face getting away with murder. Again.

I had to get out of there.

Coming Friday, part five: Golden State Killer case, intriguing book premise prompt more questions.