MI MI - JOHN NORMAN COLLINS Co-Ed Murders 1967-69, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti

[Winward1]

I'm sure the "jogger" was just out running in the rain at 12:15 a.m. past a place where a body had recently been dumped (though it was not publicized) and he parked his car just up the road in case he became tired and needed to drive the rest of the way home, as joggers are known to do.

It was widely reported that police believed the guy was the killer and had eluded their trap. So if anyone's misrepresenting anything here it's you.

The fact that they put 9 guys out there shows the confidence they had that he would show that night.

Otherwise, it's obvious why Ann Arbor police were hassling defense witnesses who had already told them everything they knew (and obviously were not covering for Collins.)

They were doing it at the behest of their bosses who believed they were one murder away from being s#@tcanned and wanted to make it look like they were accomplishing something. The situation was ideal for a case of overzealous prosecution, which since the revelations regarding Thoresen show it clearly was.

It's also obvious that the murders stopped because Thoresen was actually chased that night, got spooked as he was almost pinched and left Michigan for good.

 

[Richard]

"By the time the other officers were alerted, the two drenched officers ran after the suspect. Then they heard a car start up around the bend of Riverside Drive and fade off on Huron River Drive. By the time a squad car was in pursuit, the phantom runner and car were gone."

- Gregory Fournier, Terror in Ypsilanti, page 107

Fournier states as a preface to this quote, on page 106, What happened next is open for dispute" and on page 108, he states "Several theories were developed to explain what happened to the lone runner" but in the end "Nobody knew what happened to the jogger". Sworn testimony of the four officers during the trial make no mention of any of them pursuing the running man, and all state that they had followed orders not to leave their stakeout positions. See Fornier Pages 317-323).

 

[Richard]

"By the time the other officers were alerted, the two drenched officers ran after the suspect. Then they heard a car start up around the bend of Riverside Drive and fade off on Huron River Drive. By the time a squad car was in pursuit, the phantom runner and car were gone."

- Gregory Fournier, Terror in Ypsilanti, page 107

Fournier states as a preface to this quote, on page 106, "What happened next is open for dispute" and on page 108, he states "Several theories were developed to explain what happened to the lone runner" but in the end, "Nobody knew what happened to the jogger". Sworn testimonies of the four officers during the trial make no mention of any of them pursuing the running man. All stated that they had followed orders not to leave their stakeout positions. See Fornier Pages 317-323).

The identity of the running man was never established. Other than a passing glimpse of him in night time and in the rain, officers stated that they did not get a good enough look at his face to be able to identify him if they saw him again.

It was a very unfortunate situation. The idea of setting a trap for the killer was a good one, and well thought out and manned, although unsuccessful. The story of the running man getting away was a big embarrassment to the Sheriff and the stakeout team.

It is rather unlikely that anyone would be out for a jog in rainy weather after midnight for their health, but possible. It is also possible that this was someone whose car or motorcycle broke down, and he was running home in the rain - not jogging for exercise. Who was he? Probably we will never know. He might have been involved in Karen's murder, or just coincidentally running past the stake-out team.

The papers carried this story, so it was well known, but nobody came forward to say, "Oh, that was me. I was just..."

Had the killer quietly entered the scene undetected, saw that it was a trap and started running? Was he just running through the area to see if police had staked it out? Did he intend to return to the body for some nefarious reason? One could speculate about it endlessly.

It was the defense team that introduced the running man story into the court proceedings and then provided an alibi witness, Ms. Michele Flanders of Ortonville, MI, to state that she was with John Collins the evening of 26 July 1969 in Ortonville.

The defense introduced four other alibi witnesses as well, all of them employees of a motorcycle shop that Collins claimed to have visited at the time alleged he was murdering Karen Sue Beineman. One of those witnesses was dismissed when he admitted that he only knew of Collins being there because one of the others had mentioned it (hearsay). The other three gave differing times of Collins' arrival in their statements ranging from between noon and 3PM. Donald Kaufman was one of those witnesses and he placed Collins' arrival at between 12:30 and 1:30PM on 23 July 1969.

Kaufman was the witness who claimed that police had intimidated him by asking him if he remembered a person named Patrick Henry being in the motorcycle shop that same day. He said that he did not, and the police reminded him that he had sold a motorcycle to such a person that same day, and that saying otherwise would be perjury.

The judge told him that such was not the case (perjury) if he really didn't remember something and was truthful about it. Kaufman gave his testimony regarding when Collins was in the store, described Collins' attire, and was dismissed. No questions were asked regarding anyone named Patrick Henry.

In the end, the jury concluded that Collins had time to kill Karen and still appear at the motorcycle shop between the hours stated by the three defense witnesses.

The story about police questioning Mr. Kaufman after Collins' arraignment does pose an interesting question, however. Who was this "Patrick Henry" person, and why were they interested in him? Could they have been fishing for information which could be used to put Kaufman's testimony or his memory of an event in question?

 

[Winward1]

As I said, for obvious reasons, it was widely reported that police believed the man seen at 12:15 a.m. on the rainy night near the crime scene was the killer.

Like other things, for instance his background, this fact is in direct conflict with Collins being the killer.

This begs the question: why is what happened there in dispute? Even if it was, what does it matter? The supervisors of those at the scene told the press that they believed the guy was the killer returning to the crime scene in ungodly weather in the middle of the night.

Otherwise, there were nine cops and the running man there. No one else was around. There were no other witnesses.

But for argument's sake let's say some neighbor down the road went out looking for his dog. He was worried that his dog ran away which caused him to go running out that hour in that weather and past that scene. With all of the publicity that followed, wouldn't it make sense that the guy would have heard about the murder, realized that it was he who was running down the road (the story was front page news all over the area), and called police to let them know?

Chances are the cops would have knocked on his door in following days while investigating the murder. I've read books about other cases and all kinds of information was gained from neighbors during an investigation but there's not a peep, no other rational explanation as to who it could have been.

 

[Winward1]

To call the guy who was seen running a jogger is highly misleading.

I had a job once which caused me to drive about ten miles home through several suburban towns in the midwest between the hours of 11:30 p.m. and four a.m. in all kinds of weather.

I did this for several years. There were many joggers in the area. I didn't see one during those hours, ever.

Fournier states as a preface to this quote, on page 106, What happened next is open for dispute" and on page 108, he states "Several theories were developed to explain what happened to the lone runner" but in the end "Nobody knew what happened to the jogger". Sworn testimony of the four officers during the trial make no mention of any of them pursuing the running man, and all state that they had followed orders not to leave their stakeout positions. See Fornier Pages 317-323).

 

[Winward1]

While we're on the subject of who's being misleading, it's funny that when the cops intimidated Kaufman by asking him to get into their car, at which time they threatened him (a guy who had been a fully cooperative witness to that point) you call that "questioning."

 

[Richard]

While we're on the subject of who's being misleading, it's funny that when the cops intimidated Kaufman by asking him to get into their car, at which time they threatened him (a guy who had been a fully cooperative witness to that point) you call that "questioning."

It was Donald Kaufman's testimony that he was asked questions by the police when in an unmarked police car, particularly about a person named Patrick Henry. He felt that he was being intimidated or threatened by their questions. How is this misleading? And what effect did it have in the outcome of the trial?

 

[Winward1]

Gee, I don't know. Maybe because there's a difference between questioning someone and interrogating them. According to Kaufman, they didn't so much as ask him if he knew a Patrick Henry but told him that he sold a Patrick Henry a motorcycle the day in question and, if he testified otherwise, they were going to make sure he was charged with perjury.

Given all of the other B.S. in Collins' trial and investigation, and Kaufman was sure he didn't sell a Patrick Henry a motorcycle that day, one has to wonder what those who were running this investigation weren't willing to do to save their jobs.

 

[Winward1]

"A suspect in the murder of Karen Sue Beineman escaped from deputies who tried to catch him in a midnight footrace, the Free Press learned Monday. While the deputies waited in the dark, however, a man came walking to the scene through the woods, his footfalls blotted out by the rain. He came close enough to to touch the mannikin, which [prosecutor] Delhey had arranged in the posture of the fallen girl. Then, apparently after seeing that it was a dummy instead of the girl, he ran." -Detroit Free Press 6/29/69.

I don't see a lot to be open to interpretation about this. I do see how it sheds further doubt on Collins having killed Beineman as his alibi for the night of the stakeout was rock solid.

Fournier writing such a thing (it being open to interpretation) in his book years after a lengthy book about the case was already out, given the implausibly of Collins as a killer period, makes Fournier look like a propagandist, which given all of the reasons to believe Thoresen was Zodiac, the Michigan Coed Killer and more, one would expect.

 

[Richard]

"A suspect in the murder of Karen Sue Beineman escaped from deputies who tried to catch him in a midnight footrace, the Free Press learned Monday. While the deputies waited in the dark, however, a man came walking to the scene through the woods, his footfalls blotted out by the rain. He came close enough to to touch the mannikin, which [prosecutor] Delhey had arranged in the posture of the fallen girl. Then, apparently after seeing that it was a dummy instead of the girl, he ran." -Detroit Free Press 6/29/69....

Great example of artistic license in news story writing. He might have started with: "Notwithstanding the swiftness of their flight, the officer, pausing by the brook, took aim and..." It has the flowery flow of 19th century writing style.

No suspect had been named at that point, and none of the vivid details related in the article were mentioned in police reports or trial testimony. How would the writer know what the "suspect" was thinking - other than imagining it?

The whole incident, rather than being used to mock the police should have been cited as proof that they had, in fact, been successful in analyzing the killer and anticipating his next move (revisiting the scene). Instead of calling the police "keystone cops", they could have had a lead sentence or heading which stated; "Harvey was right!" But didn't.

The prosecution lawyers did not question Ms. Flanders regarding her alibi of having been with Collins on the night in question. It would certainly be interesting to see exactly what she said regarding how long Collins was with her group.

Collins, himself, has stated that the running man was his buddy Arnold Davis. It would be interesting to see what Arnie has to say about it.

 

[Winward1]

What's allowed in trial testimony is determined by the judge. As no change of venue was granted for this case, which seems nuts though one can understand why local authorities were so heavy handed with it given what kind of B.S. they were spinning. If they took it out of the county no one else would have motive to stage such a sham of a trail, not being in fear of losing their jobs and all.

I'll believe what's in the police reports when I see them.

 

[Richard]

The defense team of Collins certainly wanted a change of venue to have the trial take place in another Michigan county. Their reason for this would be that the residents of Washtenaw county might have been influenced by news reports and pre-trial publicity.

The truth is that this case was well known throughout Michigan and was being reported through AP and UPI feeds to all the states at the time. The various Michigan counties like Livingston, Oakland, Wayne, Shiawassee, Ingham, etc. (to where the trial might have been moved) all got the Detroit News and Free Press papers, as well as other more local papers which had extensive coverage on the "Coed Murders". It was also a nightly feature on all the prime time TV news channels out of Detroit.

 

[Richard]

A three part Michigan TV 50 year anniversary report on the Coed Murders:

Part One:
Michigan Murders: 50 years ago, terror reigned in Ypsilanti

Part Two:
Michigan Murders: 50 years ago, terror in Ypsilanti ends

Part Three:
Michigan Murders: Close calls, haunting roads - life after a suspected serial killer is arrested

------------------------------------------------
From The Eastern Echo:

The Michigan Murders Part 1: Seven Young Women

The Michigan Murders Part 2: John Norman Collins

 

[Winward1]

Enough of the propaganda, Richard. No one believes this B.S. anymore. The dopey TV watching US public, OK. But this is Websleuths.

That said, the average reader here knows that reporters for big city newspapers didn't just make up stories about how things went down. Occasionally they got facts wrong, but there's no doubt the Free Press's account was based on informed sources, not that anyone here doubts who it was who returned to the scene of the crime that night in the rain after midnight. It's clear police didn't.

And it was well established that it was not Collins.

Meanwhile, I'm sure they also realize that all of this about accounts being "open to interpretation" is rubbish, the kind of thing double-talking propagandists who continuously post under their first names (if it is actually their first name) only do.

 

[Richard]

Click on photo to enlarge.

LINKS:
Timeline of Ann Arbor History and its Tragedies, Crises, Disasters and Shocking News

Some Detroit Free Press Accounts:

Evidence locker: What police discovered at 7 Michigan murder crime scenes

John Norman Collins sends rare letter to Detroit Free Press

John Norman Collins: Michigan murder suspect's letters, interviews

 

[Winward1]

It's up for people here to decide, but I think I've made a pretty good case that Collins didn't kill any of these victims and William Thoresen did.

Between the time that the Beineman investigation began and Collins' trial started:

1. Thoresen was shot dead.
2. Mrs. Wig Shop changed her story about the motorcycle (from the brand Thoresen owned to the brand Collins owned.)
3. Motorcycle shop employee, Donald Kaufman, was threatened by police who told him that if he didn't agree to make a statement that he sold a motorcycle to a man named Patrick Henry, he would be charged with perjury. (Kaufman knew he didn't sell a motorcycle to this person, who clearly did not exist.)

If #2 and #3 aren't strange enough, given that Kaufman was fully cooperative as a witness and clearly wasn't covering for Collins, a judge refused to grant a change in venue for Collins' trial despite the fact that this case may have garnered the most pretrial publicity of any case in Michigan history.

The best explanation for all of this is that, after Thoresen died, the feds learned that he was Zodiac, killed the Michigan victims and many more (many of which I have documented in book form.) But they didn't want this known.

As usual, as can be seen with all the bogus Zodiac letters, they had local cops carry their water. They knew Collins was in custody and him being the fall guy would help keep people from asking questions like those above (that and, eventually, some propaganda in the form of books like Terror in Ypsilanti. Because they knew this all could spill out once someone started asking questions and knew about Thoresen.)

Someone in Ann Arbor was going to have a "Patrick Henry" testify at Collins' case in order to sew doubt in Kaufman's story about when Collins was at the shop. Obviously, however, at some point those who were pulling the strings decided this plan was not a good one. So they dropped it.

Instead, they concocted the B.S. story about evidence from a cop's basement. Because cops wouldn't lie, would they?

 

[Richard]

It's up for people here to decide, but I think I've made a pretty good case that Collins didn't kill any of these victims and William Thoresen did.

Between the time that the Beineman investigation began and Collins' trial started:

1. Thoresen was shot dead.
2. Mrs. Wig Shop changed her story about the motorcycle (from the brand Thoresen owned to the brand Collins owned.)
3. Motorcycle shop employee, Donald Kaufman, was threatened by police who told him that if he didn't agree to make a statement that he sold a motorcycle to a man named Patrick Henry, he would be charged with perjury. (Kaufman knew he didn't sell a motorcycle to this person, who clearly did not exist.)

If #2 and #3 aren't strange enough, given that Kaufman was fully cooperative as a witness and clearly wasn't covering for Collins, a judge refused to grant a change in venue for Collins' trial despite the fact that this case may have garnered the most pretrial publicity of any case in Michigan history.

The best explanation for all of this is that, after Thoresen died, the feds learned that he was Zodiac, killed the Michigan victims and many more (many of which I have documented in book form.) But they didn't want this known.

As usual, as can be seen with all the bogus Zodiac letters, they had local cops carry their water. They knew Collins was in custody and him being the fall guy would help keep people from asking questions like those above (that and, eventually, some propaganda in the form of books like Terror in Ypsilanti. Because they knew this all could spill out once someone started asking questions and knew about Thoresen.)

Someone in Ann Arbor was going to have a "Patrick Henry" testify at Collins' case in order to sew doubt in Kaufman's story about when Collins was at the shop. Obviously, however, at some point those who were pulling the strings decided this plan was not a good one. So they dropped it.

Instead, they concocted the B.S. story about evidence from a cop's basement. Because cops wouldn't lie, would they?

You have yet to establish that William Thoresen was even in Michigan at the time of any of the murders. Lots of theory and supposition, but no evidence. He might have looked like John Norman Collins and he might have killed someone (or even lots of people) elsewhere, but Thoresen does not appear in any way in any of these cases. Can you cite any document or proof that he was in the Ypsilanti/Ann Arbor area on any of the critical dates? Did he make any statements which would indicate that he was involved in any of the murders?

You have stated on several occasions that Mrs. Goshe changed her identification of the type of motorcycle she saw on 23 July 1969. This is simply NOT true. As I stated in an earlier post, she clearly stated that she did not know motorcycles and only picked out a Honda 450 in a show room as resembling the motorcycle she saw because it had a square mirror. In court, she did NOT state what kind of motorcycle she saw, and could not identify the motorcycle in the court room as the one she saw. She did, however, positively identify John Norman Collins in the courtroom as the person she saw on the motorcycle with whom Karen Sue Beineman rode off.

Mrs. Spaulding, the hair stylist at the Wig Shop, stated to investigators and in court that she did not know motorcycles and that she had NEVER identified the make of the motorcycle that she viewed on 23 July 1969. She also could not identify the motorcycle in court, but did identify John Norman Collins as the motorcyclist.

Another witness, Ms. Carol Wieczerza, who had worked in the store next door to the Wig Shop, testified that she had also seen the motorcyclist on his bike and saw Karen Sue Beineman go into the Wig Shop and come out again, talking to the cyclist and then getting on the bike behind him before they drove off. Ms. Wieczerza could not identify Collins because she stated that her attention was on the motorcycle itself. Being a bike enthusiast, she had identifed it to police investigators as a Triumph 650 with a lot of chrome. She pointed it out in court.

The defense did object to Mrs. Goshe being allowed to testify. but not on the basis of her inability to identify a motorcycle. They objected because investigators had shown her a photo of Collins that they had obtained from a former girlfriend of his. Mrs. Goshe did NOT identify Collins on the basis of that photograph, or any other photo, however. She had insisted on only making an identification in person. When she saw Collins in a line up, she picked him out and did so again in court, never wavering in that identification throughout her testimony or questioning.

Interesting theory regarding "Patrick Henry" who ever he was. It is, however, only speculation regarding how he might fit into the overall case. As it was, that name was only mentioned by Donald Kaufman, first in closed court before the judge (the jury was not present). Mr. Kaufman was then allowed to give his testimony when the jury returned.

Exactly what the reason behind the alleged "perjury threat" is not known. It is possible that they were trying to see if Mr. Kaufman could remember other things as well as the time of Collins' arrival. It might also be possible that they had receipts from the cycle shop that indicated Kaufman had indeed sold a motorcycle to a Patrick Henry on 23 July. If this Patrick Henry was indeed in the cycle shop at the time Collins arrived, he might have been summoned as a witness as well.

Police were probably suspicious of the Cycle store witnesses as covering for Collins. It was felt that the Cycle store might have acted as a fence for motorcycle parts that Collins and his associates had stolen in the past.

That there was considerable pre-trial news coverage and publicity concerning the "Coed Murders" is true. But as I have mentioned before, this was a case that was well known throughout the entire state. And remember, Eastern Michigan University and the University of Michigan are both large state universities with students from every Michigan county and township - as well as probably every state. It would have been very difficult to have chosen another place to conduct the trial that was not affected in some way by these murders.

The Coed Murders was a state of Michigan case, not a Federal one. If the FBI had seen an opportunity to make it a federal case that they could take credit for, they would have jumped at the chance.

 

[Winward1]

There's evidence:

1. Blue gray GM car seen driven by first coed murder suspect seen at Lake Berressa driven by guy who was spitting image of Thoresen.

2. That car, and Honda from Beineman case, could not be matched to suspect living in MI after extensive searches.

3. Coed killings extremely ambitious and same MO as Zodiac (tons of evidence Thoresen was Zodiac and he explains Mixer, Collins and Casburg killings.)

4. Perhaps best of all, Thoresen (same basic description as Collins) explains the obvious corruption of Collins' trail and the fact that Collins was not the one who returned to Beineman dump site.

 

[Winward1]

Your explanation for why Kaufman was harassed is a strawman argument. This case had nothing to do with fencing parts. Kaufman was just a guy who worked in the store where Collins and hundreds of others shopped. He cooperated 100 percent with the investigation. Him being strong armed into lying (which Mrs. Wig shop was also proven to have done, I wonder why) showed that the prosecution was corrupt. The FBI weren’t the only ones who would have wanted Thoresen’s story buried. Fallout from the revelations of what he did would not be limited to Hoover and Co. His story is one of systemic failure of the US justice system due to the pschopathic son of a supremely wealthy family. Heads would have rolled elsewhere. The guy killed all of the members of at least four families, in four states, and several members of numerous others. The FBI didn’t grant him early parole, bond him out, or sentence him to probation. But others in the justice system did. The FBI suspected the worst of him and didn’t share why with numerous LE agencies. (I’ve published docs that prove it.) Percy’s father would have cleaned Hoover’s house, starting with Hoover. But heads would have rolled across the system, from Washington to CA. That’s a lot of people in a lot of places with a lot of reasons to do whatever necessary to save their butts.

 

[Winward1]

“He might have looked like John Norman Collins and he might have killed someone (or even lots of people) elsewhere, but Thoresen does not appear in any way in any of these cases.”

He fits better than Collins. Which is why Collins, the “serial killer”, was convicted of but one murder in a trial and investigation full of fishiness.