MI MI - GARY LEITERMAN, killed Jane Mixer, 1969, suspect in other murders

[mysteriew]

Man accused in slaying of U-M law student recently convicted for child

But jurors won't hear how Leiterman allegedly bragged of having a vial of a substance that could render a woman unconscious. And they won't hear of a recent conviction for producing child sexually abusive material: two Polaroid photographs of a 16-year-old foreign exchange student partially nude and appearing to be unconscious, which police found during a search of his Gobles home last year.

Those rulings, made Tuesday by Washtenaw Circuit Judge Donald Shelton, shed light on what evidence will be brought before a jury in Leiterman's trial next month, 36 years after the slaying. Mixer's murder was once believed to be part of a series of seven slayings in Washtenaw County from 1967-1969.

Leiterman, 62, is expected to go to trial July 11, following a flurry of motions filed by the prosecutor and defense attorney as they wrangled over what the jury will be allowed to hear.

http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1119451359242730.xml

 

[mysteriew]

Were it not for a spot of blood the size of a fingernail, Gary Leiterman's story would fall into a mildly interesting, but familiar category of cold case: The seemingly upstanding citizen linked to an old murder by new forensic testing.

Leiterman, a 62-year-old retired nurse, was arrested last year for the 1969 shooting of Jane Mixer, a Michigan law student who went missing on her way home for spring break.

Leiterman had no known connection to the victim, and in the 36 years since the crime, he had never crossed investigators' radar screens. But the state police detectives who arrested him had forensic evidence that seemed airtight: DNA on the victim's pantyhose perfectly matched Leiterman's genetic profile.

But there was also a small drop of blood, scraped from Mixer's left hand almost four decades ago, and its analysis turned the case into a mystery so great even prosecutors say they can't fully solve it.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/leiterman/071905_ctv.html

 

[wordsnmorewords]

Very, very interesting reading. I remember reading an article where someone was accused of some crime where the LE said that her DNA matched the sample, but there was NO way it could have been her and she could prove it somehow, so there is a flaw somewhere. Scary to think that we are not as UNIQUE as we seem to think. I think the article was in Popular Science or Newsweek as those are the two that we get here at home and it was just within the last year or so. Can't wait to hear more on it.

 

[mysteriew]

Thirty-six years after a young law student was shot in the head at point-blank range and dumped in a cemetery, a circuit court jury convicted a retired nurse of her murder.

The panel found Gary Leiterman, 62, guilty of the first-degree murder of Jane Mixer Friday afternoon following five hours of deliberations.

Leiterman showed no reaction to the verdict.

Mixer disappeared on March 20, 1969, after telling her family she was accepting a ride home for spring break with a stranger. For years, her death was grouped with a half-dozen murders of young women that were believed to be the works of a serial killer operating in this college area.

Leiterman, a grandfather and one-time school board member, will receive a mandatory life term when Judge Donald Fhelton imposes his sentence on Aug. 30.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/leiterman/072205_verdict_ctv.html
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/regi...6/1122063580218150.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

 

[mysteriew]

Almost a year to the day the 36-year-old mystery of who killed Jane Mixer reemerged, the CBS news magazine "48 Hours Mystery" explores whether police have the right man.

The episode, called "Deadly Ride," airs at 10 p.m. Saturday on WWJ-TV (Channel 62).

Gary Leiterman, 63, of Gobles was charged Nov. 24, 2004, in Mixer's death after police matched a sample of his DNA with evidence found on Mixer's body.

After a two-week trial in Washtenaw County Circuit Court, Leiterman was found guilty July 22 in the death of the 23-year-old from Muskegon.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051124/NEWS05/511240331/1007/NEWS05

 

[shadowangel]

I'm glad you posted this case, M. I watched the 48 Hours reports and came away with so many questions...

This case displayed all the hallmarks of a staged crime. So much so, it seemed nearly sterotypical. Mixer was strangled, then shot (twice, once from the front and then the back). Then her pantyhose were pulled down and her skirt up, to suggest a sexual motive for the murder (though there was no sign of molestation). Her body was covered by other clothing and a rain coat, suggesting remorse on the part of the murderer and an attempt to maintain the victim's "modesty". The killer went so far as to place Jane's arm over her face...It appears to me that the killer may have been trying to tie the murder to the deaths of other young women in the area.

Jane was on her way home from college. Her fiance was to follow her later. So, instead of just going together, she tries to arrange a ride with a total stranger. (?)

Leiterman's DNA was found only on Jane's pantyhose. His DNA was confirmed from three places, and a probable match to three other places. The source of the DNA was never established, but it was not semen or saliva. The prosecutor suggested that Leiterman was sweating as he moved Jane's body. His sweat only dropped onto her pantyhose...(?)

A single droplet of blood was found on Jane's hand. This blood was traced to a convicted murderer from the Detroit area. Only problem is, he was 4 years old at the time of Jane's murder. His case was being processed in the lab at about the same time as Leiterman's. The prosecutor refused to allow for the possibility of cross-contamination, holding to the theory that somehow the blood of a four year-old who lives miles away somehow got onto the hand of a murdered young woman. (?)

 

[mysteriew]

You make a good point about the location of the DNA found. In order to carry a body, typically a person would have one arn under the legs and one arm under the shoulders. They did not indicate if there appeared to be any drag marks where he might have lain her on the ground, and grabbed her legs to drag her to the gravesite.
On the other hand, if I was found guilty, and yet was innocent- I would be saying where I was and who I was in contact with when the crime happened. Leiterman didn't do that. Even though they aren't exactly sure when she died, he could have tried to pinpoint where he was and who he saw the days in question.
Even Jane's sister appeared unsure of his guilt though. She stated she thought he was guilty, but she still had questions.
I too came away from the show with a lot of questions. 48 hrs does that a lot.

 

[scandi]

Hi,

I watched it too and thought it was most interesting. To the point that after the show I went and looked up her name here and found your 3 posts Mysteriew. LOL

So he must have won a new trial. The production and bragging about the vial of fluid must have come after his 1st conviction, right? So he has been in jail all of this time. The two new charges give thought that he is perverted and sick, so I am surprised they didn't let the 1st conviction stand. The 60 min show made no mention of the new charges.

What a sicko! When they showed that profile of him he reminded me so much of another recent killer - can't think who that is.

The prosecutor at the end of the show stated he thinks the 4 1/2 year old boy was there when she died. They said there could have been no mixup in the lab.

So have they researched if the boy was brought to that town on the day she died? Does his family have anyone buried in that cemetary where she was left? I could see if the killer was depositing and fixing her body and here comes this kid running over and he gives him a big whack which knocked the little boy over, the boy could have bled a little bit and if he fell down near or on her, a spot of blood landed on her hand. Actually if the boy was injured there, blood spatter could have been the answer.

He killed early on in life, then went 36 years before they matched his DNA on her nylons. Don't you wonder what other crimes he committed?

Most interesting!
Scandi

 

[mysteriew]

You know, now that you mention it- the bragging about the vial of a drug, and the child sex wasn't mentioned in the 48 hrs story. They did mention that prior to his conviction for Jane's murder he didn't have any criminal history, but they didn't mention his later conviction. I wonder why?

 

[shadowangel]

Its possible they were asked not to mention it (though I can't see a show like this actually cooperating with such a request).

Leiterman seemed completely unemotional...Detached, even.
Even so, I am thoroughly unconvinced by the case the prosecution presented. I can't see the decision not being overturned on appeal and a new trial granted. No way am I buying that a four year-old just happened to be in the neighborhood and bled one drop on a dead or dying woman. I'd be curious how much of that info made it to the jury.

(It was also mentioned that Leiterman never owned a vehicle such as was witnessed speeding from the area, but I am always a little uspicious of the se reports to begin with).

An expert testified that handwriting on a phonebook found in the basement of a dormitory matched the writing of Leiterman. Someone had scrawled Jane's name and hometown on the cover of the book. The book itself was unavailable, as a custodian had accidentally thrown it away 30 years before. The expert had to work off of photographs of the writing.
While comapring samples, the expert actually matched the writing not only to an example of Leiterman's writing, but also to an example taken from his wife.

 

[scandi]

He was convicted last year, right? And has been in custody fighting for a new trial like he said he would, right?

So we know these things happened before he was picked up and arrested for her murder, as I don't think he saw the light of day after that. That means he committed these other two offenses prior to being arrested, and either LE was not aware of them before his trial or the prosecution and defense or judge decided it would be prejudicial and didn't let it in.

The vial information was not a charged case, right? So I could see how that would come out after he was tried by someone who recognized him. The charge of producing should have been on his active record, don't you think? Unless it was a sleepy little police dept where he lived.


Scandi

 

[scandi]

I thought the 3 strong DNA spots located where they were on her pantyhose overshadowed the 4.5 year old's drop of blood. Don't you wonder if Leiterman saw that little boy in the cemetary that day? I wonder!!! There was some relationship or contact with either her and the boy or the killer and the boy for there to be a drop - actually I thought there were 2 or 3 drops of blood - on her hand.

Scandi

 

[mysteriew]

According to everything I have seen or read, the drop on her hand was one drop. And the boy, who is now an adult, is in prison. I believe they have interviewed him, and he has denied any contact with Mixer. I wonder why, if they still have the swabs from the blood spot, why haven't they rerun the DNA test? See what they come up with on the second testing? They talk about how they have reviewed the testing procedures, the lab denies any cross contamination, so why don't they retest it?

 

[shadowangel]

In my opinion, LE will not re-test the DNA until ordered to do so by the court. The results they presently have don't discount Leiterman's involvement, and if the re-test proves cross-contamination then the whole prosecution is in danger. "Opening a can of worms", I believe the saying is.I can only see cross-contamination and a faulty result as the answer. The blood drop needs to be re-tested, by an independent lab, and hopefully an order will be issued pursuant to appeal.

 

[scandi]

I thought at the very end of the show the Prosecutor addressed that very question. And he said the DNA which was definately Leiterman's, was in such spots on her pantyhose as though he had carried her after she was murdered and his sweat had dripped down on these places which made a lot of sense. He had the feeling that one spot of blood from the little boy would not affect the strong DNA evidence.


Scandi

 

[scandi]

I found this over at CTV from a thread last July:

"However, the murder for which Leiterman was just convicted was of quite a different m.o. That is one reason it was reviewed after DNA became a forensic tool. Leiterman had been in trouble after this murder, which is the reason his DNA was on file.

But to me, the one sentence speaks much:

"Leiterman acknowledged it was in his best interest not to testify."

So this poster was aware at the end of the trial {when this thread was written} tht Leiterman had been in trouble before.

Also I thought it interesting Leiterman thought it not in his best interest to testify. Wonder why!

Also the little boy {name?}, his blood for his murder trial was tested on the SAME DAY as Leiterman's was for his trial. Had to be a mix-up, right, and the blood on the hand was really Leiterman's. So that swab was evidently switched in error, right, so it wouldn't do any good to retest it. It isn't as though they have a sample of fabric to keep and pull fresh evidence from.


Scandi

 

[shadowangel]

I thought at the very end of the show the Prosecutor addressed that very question. And he said the DNA which was definately Leiterman's, was in such spots on her pantyhose as though he had carried her after she was murdered and his sweat had dripped down on these places which made a lot of sense. He had the feeling that one spot of blood from the little boy would not affect the strong DNA evidence.


Scandi

Some of the spots were under where Jane's skirt would have been, for one thing. For another-how did he only drip sweat on her pantyhose and not anywhere else? Makes no sense to me.
And, of course, the prosecutor had just succesfully closed a case-there is nothing in it for him to now question his own evidence. The point is not that a spot of blood from a little boy exists (though no one is ever going to be able to explain that)--its the possibility that the crime lab may have made a mistake. If there was cross-contamination between the sample from the young boy (grown up into a murderer) and the sample taken from Jane, then there also exists the possibility of cross-contamination between the known Leiterman samples and the unknown samples from Jane's pantyhose. Its far too coincidental that the lab was processing the murderer's sample at the same time as Leiterman's.
Far better to re-visit the evidence than to allow an innocent man to spend the rest of his life in prison. OR to let the real killer remain free.
Is Leiterman guilty? I'm not convinced yet.
(I'm quite enjoying the discussion, by the way!)

 

[scandi]

Here is that thread from CTV:

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=231848&perpage=10&highlight=leiterman&pagenumber=2

It is interesting as the posters were very passionate about the case and did as much research as they could. I thought this was especially interesting:

"Mr. Leiterman is not as clean-cut as he may appear:

1) He was convicted of forging prescriptions
2) He lived in the region of the graveyard where Jane Mixer was found.
3) He owned a .22 pistol which is missing.
4) Photos were found in his house. These were scenes of a disrobed and possibly drugged exchange student that had been staying with him previously. The pose was somewhat similar to the was Jane Mixer was posed after her death.
5) According to his roommate at the time he spoke about having drugs which could knock a girl out. Furthermore, he followed the case very closely.
6) He was accused of grappling a fellow nurse while on a field trip."

Also, the family of the 4 year old was into criminal activity, and there is an interesting discussion about that.






Scandi

 

[shadowangel]

I'm certainly not saying the guy is innocent...I would just hate to see him get away because of a poor prosecution. There are questions here that are going to have to be answered someday.

Newspaper accounts mentio several of the things on the list. Leiterman reported the .22 as stolen in '87. His roommate of the late '60s/early '70s stated that Leiterman kept newspaper articles of the murders that occurred around the time of Jane's death. None of this, of course, proves anything.

 

[scandi]

I agree Shadowangel, but it certainly makes him much more likely to be a goooood candidate for the crime. These posters knew, at the time of the trial, that he had photos of an exchange student that were improper for him to have taken, but I don't think there were charges filed on that yet. If he was convicted of producing then it had to be after he was arrested for Jane's murder.

I've also been thinking about what you said about him carrying her, to where her skirt would cover the top part where the one good DNA stain was. He's a sicko! He pulled her skirt up and her hose down, and maybe he carried her like that too so he could feel her skin against his.

If I did the Ben Franklin close on Leiterman, the list of suspicious activity and points would far outweigh the non suspicious activity. He had accessability to her and lived close to the graveyard where she was found and some sick sexual motive shown by his tendency to be agressive in a sexual way with women - thats means and motive to me.

I don't know either, of course LOL, but it is an interesting case to study and I'm enjoying the discussion too. I think this guy runs very deep into the world of sexual perversion. They might discover more things he is guilty of.


Scandi