Colin said he would have killed June

[scipio_usmc]

It's an interesting case scipio because he does seem to have an airtight alibi. There's also another person who has an interest in his wife's demise,namely Pamela Hupp. He's been released pending a retrial. I think he did it but can't make out how. http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-inexplicable-case-of-russ-faria.html

The TOD window was presented as 7:30-9:40pm.  He left his friends around 8:45 per their testimony.  Police suggest the Arby's receipt (9:09 receipt) was given to him by a friend. If he did go to Arby's himself the earliest he could make it home is 20 minutes so 9:30. That least only 10 minutes to fight with her, kill her then call 911.  It's not impossible for him to kill her that fast. If the TOD window were earlier then it would prove he was innocent assuming they were telling the truth about him being with them. I haven't seen any evidence that the defense has come up with a different TOD. They certainly should have if they could have. 

When someone changes a beneficiary it is a double edged sword.  While it presents the opportunity to argue the person killed her for the money it also suggests she was having problems with her husband that she would change the beneficiary to a friend.  Someone has to be pretty stupid to commit the murder only days later. 

If they found evidence that she wasn't having problems with her husband and would not have changed the beneficiary and to suggest that the switching of the beneficiary was nefarious that would be extremely strong evidence against the friend.  There are cases where forgeries occur in order to change a beneficiary.  That would blow things wide open. The circumstances surrounding the policy change is where I would investigate if I were defending him.  In fact, I think the prosecution argued he got $100 from a different insurance police and that such could have been a motive.  Why would she change one policy but not the other?  I would definitely look long and hard at who processed that change and exactly how it was processed.  I recall cases where a doctor and insurance agent were working in tandem to nefariously change beneficiaries then kill them.   

   

[Steve_uk]

The TOD window was presented as 7:30-9:40pm.  He left his friends around 8:45 per their testimony.  Police suggest the Arby's receipt (9:09 receipt) was given to him by a friend. If he did go to Arby's himself the earliest he could make it home is 20 minutes so 9:30. That least only 10 minutes to fight with her, kill her then call 911.  It's not impossible for him to kill her that fast. If the TOD window were earlier then it would prove he was innocent assuming they were telling the truth about him being with them. I haven't seen any evidence that the defense has come up with a different TOD. They certainly should have if they could have. 

When someone changes a beneficiary it is a double edged sword.  While it presents the opportunity to argue the person killed her for the money it also suggests she was having problems with her husband that she would change the beneficiary to a friend.  Someone has to be pretty stupid to commit the murder only days later. 

If they found evidence that she wasn't having problems with her husband and would not have changed the beneficiary and to suggest that the switching of the beneficiary was nefarious that would be extremely strong evidence against the friend.  There are cases where forgeries occur in order to change a beneficiary.  That would blow things wide open. The circumstances surrounding the policy change is where I would investigate if I were defending him.  In fact, I think the prosecution argued he got $100 from a different insurance police and that such could have been a motive.  Why would she change one policy but not the other?  I would definitely look long and hard at who processed that change and exactly how it was processed.  I recall cases where a doctor and insurance agent were working in tandem to nefariously change beneficiaries then kill them.   

   

But he has to change his bloodied clothes and hide them within that time period. Wasn't the body cold when Police arrived?

[scipio_usmc]

But he has to change his bloodied clothes and hide them within that time period. Wasn't the body cold when Police arrived?

Changing right away into his sleeping clothes, killing her then back into his old clothing is possible though somewhat unlikely unless he planned things out. One would expect if it was a spontaneous fight it would have happened right away before he changed  One would have to know what his usual habits were so far as changing his clothes when he arrived home.  Some people change right away, others do not.

I didn't see any references to the defense posting any expert evidence regarding the time of death in the original trial only appeal references to the window being between 7:30 and 9:40.   

I still think the key is the changing of the policy.  If in fact her friend murdered her over the beneficiary change then there is more to the story of the change. People change all their policies if they are mad at someone. The only explanation for changing only 1 would be that she wasn't mad but rather wanted to spread her love by giving to multiple beneficiaries.  They should be going over the change with a fine tooth comb making sure it wasn't changed by some fraudulent action without her knowledge/approval.  That would be the easiest way to establish reasonable doubt. In fact it could be enough for the prosecution to use to go after the friend.  The policy change is key hopefully his lawyers recognize that.     

[Steve_uk]

Changing right away into his sleeping clothes, killing her then back into his old clothing is possible though somewhat unlikely unless he planned things out. One would expect if it was a spontaneous fight it would have happened right away before he changed  One would have to know what his usual habits were so far as changing his clothes when he arrived home.  Some people change right away, others do not.

I didn't see any references to the defense posting any expert evidence regarding the time of death in the original trial only appeal references to the window being between 7:30 and 9:40.   

I still think the key is the changing of the policy.  If in fact her friend murdered her over the beneficiary change then there is more to the story of the change. People change all their policies if they are mad at someone. The only explanation for changing only 1 would be that she wasn't mad but rather wanted to spread her love by giving to multiple beneficiaries.  They should be going over the change with a fine tooth comb making sure it wasn't changed by some fraudulent action without her knowledge/approval.  That would be the easiest way to establish reasonable doubt. In fact it could be enough for the prosecution to use to go after the friend.  The policy change is key hopefully his lawyers recognize that.     

The policy was changed at a public library and had there been coercion it would have been brought up at trial. I agree about the second policy but the timeline just doesn't fit unless one or more of his game friends are lying,which seems unlikely. There's nothing more the law establishment hate than to bring themselves into disrepute and for that reason and the fact that Faria is unlikely to reoffend my prediction is that he will get off.

[scipio_usmc]

I have looked into what evidence is available about the change and found some interesting things if true:

"The women had been friends for about 10 years, Hupp told authorities, and had worked together in the insurance business."

Looky here an insurance insider just the kind of red flag I mentioned.   

"Hupp also said she didn’t even know if the beneficiary change had been processed at the time of the murder."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/russell-faria-s-wife-was-stabbed-times-but-was-he/article_dd93f262-594e-5b88-b53f-097fc10033c8.html

She's an insurance insider she would be able to find out whether the change was processed.  The on;y way she could deny knowledge is if she didn't know the change was taking place because Betsy didn't tell her.

But evidence shows she was with Betsy at the time the change was made so she had to know.  Actually evidence shows she was there with a woman claiming to be Betsy.  Whether it really was Betsy no one knows because the librarian who witnessed the change didn't ask them for ID like she was supposed to.  So for all anyone knows Hupp took some woman there to impersonate Betsy.  This is exactly what I meant that they need to dig deeper.  They should push the librarian further to see if she recognized Betsy as the person purporting to be Betsy. I wish I could read her deposition transcript:

"The library assistant is a woman by the name of Lauren Manganelli. So far, I can find no connection with Lauren and Pam. Lauren said during her deposition on 2014 July 22 that she saw Betsy and Pam come into the library and were there about a half hour organizing papers and then approached her in order to ask her to witness the signature. She says the date was 2011 Dec 23. Pamela did most of the talking during this exchange. Pam told Lauren that Betsy a.k.a. Elizabeth Faria was getting a divorce from her husband Russ and because of this she wanted to sign over her policy to her best friend Pam. Either Pam, Elizabeth, or both did mention that Elizabeth had children and the money would be used for them.

Lauren specifically says that she did not ask either woman for identification. This is in  direct contrast to what Pam Hupp has told the court. She claims her and Elizabeth had both shown their ID's to Lauren."

They change is the key to the case.  Pam told the librarian the change was because of an impending divorce.  Betsy told no one else about an impending divorce so far as I can tell. Moreover, if that were true then why would she change only one policy and leave the other in her husband's name?   I bet the woman with her wasn't Betsy.

Something else I encountered while reading about the policy is that she told police $100,000 was put in trust for Betsy's kids and $50,000 was to be given to a friend with cancer but she died too soon to have a chance to give it to her. The family of that women, who did in fact die, said she died 1.5 years after Betsy and that Hupp never said a word during those 1.5 years about giving her any money to help cover her cancer bills.

I bet a compelling case could be made against Hupp if they actually tried. I would wager a bundle on them being able to prove the beneficiary change was totally bogus if they would dig deeper. It's always the linchpin, it's cliche but it is cliche because it is so damn common.

Now you know why the appeal was granted. The foul cited in the appeal was not being able to grill Hupp. I bet she will take the 5th Amendment on the stand.

[Steve_uk]

I have looked into what evidence is available about the change and found some interesting things if true:

"The women had been friends for about 10 years, Hupp told authorities, and had worked together in the insurance business."

Looky here an insurance insider just the kind of red flag I mentioned.   

"Hupp also said she didn’t even know if the beneficiary change had been processed at the time of the murder."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/russell-faria-s-wife-was-stabbed-times-but-was-he/article_dd93f262-594e-5b88-b53f-097fc10033c8.html

She's an insurance insider she would be able to find out whether the change was processed.  The on;y way she could deny knowledge is if she didn't know the change was taking place because Betsy didn't tell her.

But evidence shows she was with Betsy at the time the change was made so she had to know.  Actually evidence shows she was there with a woman claiming to be Betsy.  Whether it really was Betsy no one knows because the librarian who witnessed the change didn't ask them for ID like she was supposed to.  So for all anyone knows Hupp took some woman there to impersonate Betsy.  This is exactly what I meant that they need to dig deeper.  They should push the librarian further to see if she recognized Betsy as the person purporting to be Betsy. I wish I could read her deposition transcript:

"The library assistant is a woman by the name of Lauren Manganelli. So far, I can find no connection with Lauren and Pam. Lauren said during her deposition on 2014 July 22 that she saw Betsy and Pam come into the library and were there about a half hour organizing papers and then approached her in order to ask her to witness the signature. She says the date was 2011 Dec 23. Pamela did most of the talking during this exchange. Pam told Lauren that Betsy a.k.a. Elizabeth Faria was getting a divorce from her husband Russ and because of this she wanted to sign over her policy to her best friend Pam. Either Pam, Elizabeth, or both did mention that Elizabeth had children and the money would be used for them.

Lauren specifically says that she did not ask either woman for identification. This is in  direct contrast to what Pam Hupp has told the court. She claims her and Elizabeth had both shown their ID's to Lauren."

They change is the key to the case.  Pam told the librarian the change was because of an impending divorce.  Betsy told no one else about an impending divorce so far as I can tell. Moreover, if that were true then why would she change only one policy and leave the other in her husband's name?   I bet the woman with her wasn't Betsy.

Something else I encountered while reading about the policy is that she told police $100,000 was put in trust for Betsy's kids and $50,000 was to be given to a friend with cancer but she died too soon to have a chance to give it to her. The family of that women, who did in fact die, said she died 1.5 years after Betsy and that Hupp never said a word during those 1.5 years about giving her any money to help cover her cancer bills.

I bet a compelling case could be made against Hupp if they actually tried. I would wager a bundle on them being able to prove the beneficiary change was totally bogus if they would dig deeper. It's always the linchpin, it's cliche but it is cliche because it is so damn common.

Now you know why the appeal was granted. The foul cited in the appeal was not being able to grill Hupp. I bet she will take the 5th Amendment on the stand.

Hupp was also cagey about whether she entered the house that night,changing her story when pressed. However your scenario of an impostor at the library is risky(this is a murder case after all),the signature could be checked and it would also mean Hupp had an accomplice whom she would have to trust not to inform authorities should anything go awry.

[scipio_usmc]

Hupp was also cagey about whether she entered the house that night,changing her story when pressed. However your scenario of an impostor at the library is risky(this is a murder case after all),the signature could be checked and it would also mean Hupp had an accomplice whom she would have to trust not to inform authorities should anything go awry.

Why go to a library instead of a bank?  Banks notarize for free but they want ID and have CAMERAS.  Libraries here have no cameras!  It seems too odd to only change one policy if actually planning a divorce and she had other friends she would have told if she was planning a divorce.  She was dying why plan a divorce anyway? She had relatives she could have placed in charge of a trust for her kids.   
Letting her friend lie about her getting divorced in order to change it makes little sense. It's cliche to forge a beneficiary change because it actually happens.  It's actually rare to get a handwriting expert.  The standard is to get the testimony of the person who witnessed the signing, in this case the librarian.  Most expect that to be sufficient to get away with it. An accomplice would be an accomplice to murder so would never talk unless caught red handed and desiring a deal for leniency.

It's possible she talked Betsy into it but I think much more likely is that she did it fraudulently.  She worked in the industry and knew what she could get away with. While less likely it is possible no one did enough digging to tie her to the librarian. For all we know the librarian knew her and signed it for her and made up the other person being with her. The librarian probably would have lied saying they showed ID but sometimes people don't think ahead enough as they are lying.

Notaries fraudulently notarizing things is nothing new. It's happened with everything from simple affidavits to wills.  In the Amityville Case a notary notarized an affidavit from a nonexistent person and nothing happened to that notary despite being caught!  The affidavit was from a person who supposedly was with DeFeo at the time of the murders and could confirm he didn't commit them. The authorities found no trace of the man living anywhere or even being born because he was fictional.  He was supposedly the brother in law of his wife.  It gets worse he forged a marriage certificate so he could pretend he was married to his wife at the time of the murders when in fact he never met her until 1985 while he was in prison and married her in 1989.  This sounds too outrageous to be true but some people are very brazen.   The judge found this all too outrageous to be true and he lost his motion to have his conviction vacated.  A Book picked up these lies a decade later and published them as true and a documentary was even made about it.  Some people are so stupid they actually believe the book and documentary.

Tell me if this adds up to you:

A) December 23, 2011 husband is removed as beneficiary allegedly because she is planning a divorce though she failed to seek out any divorce attorneys prior to her death and he is left beneficiary of her other policy (which conveniently provides him with a motive- to kill her before she changes the other policy)

B) December 25, 2011 has sex with the husband which is confirmed at autopsy by some of his sperm found inside her which is several days old

[Steve_uk]

Why go to a library instead of a bank?  Banks notarize for free but they want ID and have CAMERAS.  Libraries here have no cameras!  It seems too odd to only change one policy if actually planning a divorce and she had other friends she would have told if she was planning a divorce.  She was dying why plan a divorce anyway? She had relatives she could have placed in charge of a trust for her kids.   
Letting her friend lie about her getting divorced in order to change it makes little sense. It's cliche to forge a beneficiary change because it actually happens.  It's actually rare to get a handwriting expert.  The standard is to get the testimony of the person who witnessed the signing, in this case the librarian.  Most expect that to be sufficient to get away with it. An accomplice would be an accomplice to murder so would never talk unless caught red handed and desiring a deal for leniency.

It's possible she talked Betsy into it but I think much more likely is that she did it fraudulently.  She worked in the industry and knew what she could get away with. While less likely it is possible no one did enough digging to tie her to the librarian. For all we know the librarian knew her and signed it for her and made up the other person being with her. The librarian probably would have lied saying they showed ID but sometimes people don't think ahead enough as they are lying.

Notaries fraudulently notarizing things is nothing new. It's happened with everything from simple affidavits to wills.  In the Amityville Case a notary notarized an affidavit from a nonexistent person and nothing happened to that notary despite being caught!  The affidavit was from a person who supposedly was with DeFeo at the time of the murders and could confirm he didn't commit them. The authorities found no trace of the man living anywhere or even being born because he was fictional.  He was supposedly the brother in law of his wife.  It gets worse he forged a marriage certificate so he could pretend he was married to his wife at the time of the murders when in fact he never met her until 1985 while he was in prison and married her in 1989.  This sounds too outrageous to be true but some people are very brazen.   The judge found this all too outrageous to be true and he lost his motion to have his conviction vacated.  A Book picked up these lies a decade later and published them as true and a documentary was even made about it.  Some people are so stupid they actually believe the book and documentary.

Tell me if this adds up to you:

A) December 23, 2011 husband is removed as beneficiary allegedly because she is planning a divorce though she failed to seek out any divorce attorneys prior to her death and he is left beneficiary of her other policy (which conveniently provides him with a motive- to kill her before she changes the other policy)

B) December 25, 2011 has sex with the husband which is confirmed at autopsy by some of his sperm found inside her which is several days old

The couple had been on a cruise trip only recently and I don't know who spread the rumours about impending divorce. Maybe Pamela Rupp convinced her that the money would be safer in her hands as a trustee and away from the daughters who might spend it all at once. The second insurance policy would take care of Russel upon her imminent death from cancer.

[scipio_usmc]

The couple had been on a cruise trip only recently and I don't know who spread the rumours about impending divorce. Maybe Pamela Rupp convinced her that the money would be safer in her hands as a trustee and away from the daughters who might spend it all at once. The second insurance policy would take care of Russel upon her imminent death from cancer.

Pam Rupp told the beneficiary change witness that Betsy was doing the change because she was planning to divorce her husband.  The Woman there purporting to be Betsy did not deny Rupp's claim that this is why the change was being done. If the true reason was simply because Rupp convinced Betsy she would be a better fiduciary of the funds for the children why would Rupp make up it was because of an impending divorce and why would Betsy stand by this lie?

Rupp to the witness in front of someone purporting to be Betsy- change was because she was planning to divorce her husband.

Rupp to police- motive for the change was because Betsy didn't trust her husband and wanted Rupp to be the trustee of the proceeds

Rupp's account subsequent to conviction- motive for the change was because Betsy wanted Rupp to have the money instead of her husband and kids.

---
I don't believe Betsy enacted the change of there would be no need to keep making up different accounts.
 

[scipio_usmc]

For those interested Faria has been found not guilty in his retrial

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/faria-not-guilty-in-lincoln-county-murder-of-his-wife/article_1a377230-8af1-5d79-992a-0f32d1c9bbf6.html

[Steve_uk]

For those interested Faria has been found not guilty in his retrial

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/faria-not-guilty-in-lincoln-county-murder-of-his-wife/article_1a377230-8af1-5d79-992a-0f32d1c9bbf6.html

It's hardly a surprise. He's unlikely to reoffend,whether innocent or guilty.

[scipio_usmc]

It's hardly a surprise. He's unlikely to reoffend,whether innocent or guilty.

The judge announced it was either Pam Hupp or Faria and that they failed to establish it was Faria. Reading between the lines he thinks Hupp did it.  It seems obvious anyway that Pam Hupp did it but the county prosecutor is a clown so chances are she won't try Hupp.  Hupp changed her story so many times the prosecution didn't even use her at the retrial.  Her most recent story is she was having a lesbian affair with the victim...

I could make a strong case against her and tha tis before even looking at whether she took someone else with her to effect the policy change and without investigating with the company whether she phoned the the day of the murder to make sure the change went through.  Police didn't bother to do such because they didn't consider her a potential suspect.  The lead cop is a complete ass much like the prosecutor.  It should be reinvestigated but likely won't be.