DISCLAIMER

This is a privately owned blog. It is not and has never been an official organ of any ecclesiastical organization.

"No one man, or group of men, can himself speak for the Church of Christ. It is nonetheless possible to speak from within the Church, in conformity with Orthodox tradition; and it is this that we shall attempt to do." Fr. Seraphim Rose Orthodox Word #1 Jan-Feb 1965 p. 17

the woman who murdered my husband's first wife 1





 the woman who murdered my husband's first wife


===========================================
===========================================
===========================================
===========================================
===========================================
===========================================
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19931640628So2d1012_11392
BRECKENRIDGE v. STATE
CR-91-1277.
628 So.2d 1012 (1993)
Nancy BRECKENRIDGE
v.
STATE.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
August 13, 1993.
Rehearing Denied September 30, 1993.
Certiorari Denied November 24, 1993.
Chris S. Christ, Birmingham, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Stephen Dodd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Alabama Supreme Court 1930031.
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant, Nancy Breckenridge, was indicted on November 8, 1991, in Jefferson County, for the capital offense of murder committed during a kidnapping in the first degree, in violation of § 13A-5-40(a)(1), Code of Alabama 1975. The indictment reads, in part, as follows:
"NANCY BRECKENRIDGE ... did intentionally cause the death of Pamellia Higginbotham by suffocating or strangling her with tape, a scarf, her hands or by means otherwise unknown, and NANCY BRECKENRIDGE ... caused said death during NANCY BRECKENRIDGE[`S]... abduction of, or attempt to abduct, Pamellia Higginbotham with intent to inflict physical injury upon her, in violation of Section 13A-5-40(a)(1) of the Alabama Criminal Code...."
At arraignment, on December 17, 1991, the appellant pleaded not guilty.  On March 20, 1992, a jury found her guilty of the capital offense charged in the indictment.  A sentencing hearing was held before the jury, in accordance with §§ 13A-5-43 through -46, and the jury returned an advisory verdict recommending by unanimous vote life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.  Thereafter, the trial court held another sentencing hearing, in accordance with §§ 13A-5-47 through -52, and, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and considering the jury's recommendation, the trial court sentenced Breckenridge to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
The state's evidence shows the following.  In approximately 1980, Pamellia Higginbotham (hereinafter referred to as "the victim") married Ray Higginbotham.  Three children were born of the marriage.  In July 1990, they divorced, and the victim moved out of the family home, which was near Calera in Shelby County.  Two of the children stayed with Ray, and the other child was placed with a relative in Mississippi.  Ray had a son by a previous marriage, R.H., who at the time of the divorce was 17 years of age and resided in the family home.  He remained with Ray when the parties divorced.  Shortly after the divorce, Ray met the appellant.  They saw each other frequently, and there was talk of marriage.
Then the victim moved back into the house with Ray.  This caused problems between Ray and the appellant.  The appellant did not want the victim living with Ray.  The appellant persuaded R.H. and his 19-year-old friend, Eugene Brasher, to assist her in kidnapping the victim and in bringing the victim to her.  She told them that she would leave a garbage bag beside a garbage dumpster at a certain location and that, in the garbage bag, they would find duct tape to bind the victim.  R.H. and Brasher located the garbage bag containing the duct tape as the appellant said they would.
On December 16, 1990, R.H. and Brasher seized the victim in the Higginbotham home, bound and gagged her with the duct tape that had been furnished by the appellant, put her in Brasher's automobile, and delivered her to the appellant at a prearranged site in a rural area near Calera in Shelby County.  When R.H. and Brasher arrived with the victim, the appellant used a syringe to inject an unidentified substance1 into the victim's arm and neck.  She then began strangling the victim, using her hands and then a red scarf.  Having difficulty, the appellant asked Brasher to assist her.  Brasher claimed that he refused; however, R.H. testified that he saw both Brasher and the appellant choking the victim.  Brasher then placed the victim in the trunk of the appellant's automobile, along with her shoes, her purse, and the garbage bag, and the appellant drove away.
On January 15, 1991, the body of the victim was discovered in an isolated rural area of Jefferson County.  An autopsy revealed that the victim died either from asphyxiation or strangulation.
R.H. and Brasher confessed to their part in the crime and testified at trial against the appellant.2  However, the appellant, in her testimony, denied any part in the commission of the crime.  She attempted to place the blame on R.H. and Brasher by testifying that, on the day of the victim's disappearance, as she was traveling from Calera to Birmingham, she observed Brasher's car parked on an exit ramp of the interstate highway.  She testified that she stopped, thinking that they had car trouble, and that they showed her the beaten, bound, and gagged victim lying in the back of Brasher's automobile.  She stated that R.H. and Brasher asked her to help them and that she refused and drove away toward Birmingham.
The appellant raises five issues on appeal.
I.
The appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to quash the indictment. She argues that the indictment was vague and ambiguous and that it failed to properly apprise her of the charges against her.
Rule 13.2(a), A.R.Cr.P., provides:
"The indictment or information shall be a plain, concise statement of the charge in ordinary language sufficiently definite to inform a defendant of common understanding of the offense charged and with that degree of certainty which will enable the court, upon conviction, to pronounce the proper judgment."
Rule 13.2(a) mirrors the requirement of § 15-8-25, Code of Alabama 1975. An indictment is sufficient if it substantially follows the language of the statute violated, provided the statute prescribes with definitiveness the elements of the offense. Ex parte Allred, 393 So.2d 1030 (Ala.1981). An indictment must allege all the elements of the offense charged and must also sufficiently apprise the accused of what he or she must be prepared to defend against. Hewlett
v. State, 520 So.2d 200 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), cert. denied, 520 So.2d 200 (Ala.1987).
In this case, the indictment is clear, concise, and understandable. It charges murder of the victim by the defendant during a kidnapping in the first degree. The essential elements of the capital offense are averred in the indictment, and the indictment parallels the language of § 13A-5-40(a)(1). It states sufficient facts to enable the appellant to understand the nature of the crime charged and the particular acts against which she would have to be prepared to defend.
The appellant seems to contend that, because, she says, only a murder charge was presented to the grand jury, her prosecution under an indictment charging murder occurring during a kidnapping was a denial of due process. We consider her underlying premise—that only a murder charge was presented to the grand jury—to be faulty. She cites Talley v. City of Clanton, 495 So.2d 1165 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), as authority for her contention. The appellant was initially charged with murder when she was arrested; however, as the record clearly shows, the grand jury returned a true bill against the appellant for the capital offense of murder committed during the course of a kidnapping. It is apparent from the face of the indictment that the grand jury had evidence before it to support this indictment. An indictment should be sufficiently specific to identify the accusation or charge in order that the accused not be tried for an offense different from that intended by the grand jury. Gayden v. State, 38 Ala.App. 39, 80 So.2d 495 (1954). Here, the indictment is sufficiently specific to identify the murder-kidnapping capital offense as the crime intended by the grand jury to be charged.
We find that the indictment in the instant case was sufficient, and, therefore, we hold that the trial court correctly denied the appellant's motion to quash the indictment.
II.
The appellant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the lesser included offenses of manslaughter and kidnapping in the first and second degrees. The issue was properly preserved for review by timely objection. The trial court refused to charge the jury, as requested, on the ground that there was no rational basis in the evidence presented to support such instructions. The trial court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of the capital offense charged in the indictment, i.e., murder committed by the defendant during a kidnapping in the first degree, § 13A-5-40(a)(1), which included the elements of the component crimes of the charge, i.e., murder, § 13A-6-2(a)(1), and kidnapping in the first degree, § 13A-6-43(a)(4). The trial court also instructed the jury on one lesser included offense, i.e., felony murder, § 13A-6-2(a)(3).
A defendant accused of a greater offense is entitled to have the trial court charge on any lesser included offense if there is any reasonable theory from the evidence to support the lesser charge, regardless of whether the state or the defendant offers the evidence. Ex parte Pruitt, 457 So.2d 456 (Ala.1984); Parker v. State, 581 So.2d 1211 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), cert. denied, 581 So.2d 1216 (Ala.1991). A court may properly refuse to charge on a lesser included offense only when (1) it is clear to the judicial mind that there is no evidence tending to bring the offense within the definition of the lesser offense, or (2) the requested charge would have a tendency to mislead or confuse the jury. Anderson v. State, 507 So.2d 580 (Ala. Cr.App.1987). "`[E]very accused is entitled to have charges given which would not be misleading, which correctly state the law of his case, and which are supported by any evidence, however weak, insufficient, or doubtful in credibility.'" Ex parte Stork, 475 So.2d 623, 625 (Ala.1985) (quoting Ex parte Chavers, 361 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Ala.1978). Section 13A-1-9(b) provides, "The court shall not charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a rational basis for a verdict convicting the defendant of the included offense."
The question before us is whether there was any evidence to have supported any reasonable theory by which the appellant could be found guilty of manslaughter or of kidnapping in the first or second degree alone. A
person commits the crime of manslaughter if he causes the death of another person recklessly or as a result of a sudden heat of passion resulting from legal provocation. § 13A-6-3. A person commits the crime of kidnapping in the first degree, under the statutory alternative even remotely pertinent here, if he abducts another person with intent to accomplish or aid in the commission of any felony or flight therefrom, or to inflict physical injury upon that person or to terrorize him or a third person. § 13A-6-43. A person commits the crime of kidnapping in the second degree if he abducts another person. §§ 13A-6-44(a)(3), -44(a)(4), and -44(a)(5).
In this case, the appellant offered no evidence to support a theory that she could have been found guilty of manslaughter or of kidnapping in the first or second degree, only. In fact, she denied any participation in the murder or the kidnapping, a position inconsistent with her request for instructions on these lesser included offenses. The state's evidence, on the other hand, showed that the appellant instigated and planned the commission of the crime; that she assisted R.H. and Brasher in kidnapping the victim by furnishing the duct tape used to bind and gag the victim; and that immediately upon delivery of the victim to the appellant, she injected the victim with an unidentified substance and strangled her in the presence of R.H. and Brasher. There was no evidence in this case supporting a reasonable theory that would support a finding that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter. Likewise, there is no evidence to support a reasonable theory would support a finding that she was guilty only of kidnapping in either the first or second degree. Under the facts presented, the appellant either was guilty of the capital crime charged or she was innocent. When the evidence clearly shows the appellant either is guilty of the offense charged or is innocent, the charge on a lesser included offense is not necessary or proper. Perry v. State, 455 So.2d 999 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). We find no possible evidence which would have supported instructions on the lesser included offenses of manslaughter and kidnapping in the first and second degrees.
III.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on the lesser included offense of felony murder. She contends that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the intent element of that offense and on the application of accomplice liability to that offense.
After the trial court's oral charge to the jury, in the guilt phase of the trial, the appellant raised certain objections to the charge. The record in this regard shows the following:
"[THE COURT]: Are there any exceptions to the Court's charges?
"MR. CHRIST [defense counsel]: Yes, Your Honor.
"MR. STOKESBERRY [prosecuting attorney]: Not by the prosecution, Your Honor.
". . . .
"THE COURT: All right. Mr. Christ.
"MR. CHRIST: Yes, sir. If it please the Court, as to the charges ... we would make the exception to the lesser included offense of the Court failing to bring the case down to manslaughter.
"We also make exception in that the charge of kidnapping was not addressed to the jury.
"We further make exception, Your Honor, to the accomplice statute—I mean the accomplice charge where the Court failed to make a significant distinction between a felony murder doctrine and accomplice liability in that the accomplice liability requires a greater showing of the defendant's individual intent....
"THE COURT: As I understand, you're asking the Court to give a lesser included offense of manslaughter; is that right?
"MR. CHRIST: Manslaughter and kidnapping, Your Honor.
. . . . .
"THE COURT: Kidnapping in what, first degree?
"MR. CHRIST: Kidnapping, second and kidnapping, first.
"THE COURT: Well, the Court has given considerable thought to all the possible
lesser included offenses, and after such consideration finds no rational basis for giving those offenses based on the facts of the evidence as presented by the state in this case. Anything else?
"MR. CHRIST: Also, another aspect, Judge. And maybe I'm wrong. Did you talk on the character evidence in this matter?
"THE COURT: I charged on character evidence.
"MR. CHRIST: All right. Thank you, sir. I might have missed that.
"THE COURT: Anything else?
"MR. CHRIST: No, sir, Your Honor, at this time."
It is clear from the record that the appellant obtained an adverse ruling on her request for instructions on the lesser included offenses of manslaughter and kidnapping in the first and second degrees; however, she did not obtain an adverse ruling from the court on her objection to the trial court's felony murder and accomplice liability instructions. This court may review only those matters on which adverse rulings have been made in the trial court. "`In the absence of a ruling, a request for a ruling or objection to the court's failure to rule, there is nothing preserved for appellate review.'" Johnson v. State, 542 So.2d 341, 345 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) (quoting Moore v. State, 457 So.2d 981, 988 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1053, 105 S.Ct. 1757, 84 L.Ed.2d 820 (1985)).
Thus, this issue is procedurally barred from our review because the appellant failed to obtain an adverse ruling in the lower court.
IV.
The appellant contends that the state failed to prove a prima facie case of murder committed during a kidnapping in the first degree as charged in the indictment. This issue is preserved for review by the trial court's denial of the appellant's timely motion for a judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the state's case-in-chief. She argues that the state failed to produce evidence connecting her to the kidnapping and to the murder of the victim.
In deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the trial court, the evidence must be reviewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Cumbo v. State, 368 So.2d 871 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 877 (Ala.1979). Conflicting evidence presents a jury question not subject to review on appeal, provided the state's evidence establishes a prima facie case. Gunn v. State, 387 So.2d 280 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 387 So.2d 283 (Ala.1980). The trial court's denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal must be reviewed by determining whether there existed legal evidence before the jury, at the time the motion was made, from which the jury by fair inference could have found the appellant guilty. Thomas v. State, 363 So.2d 1020 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). In applying this standard, the appellate court will determine only if legal evidence was presented from which the jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Willis v. State, 447 So.2d 199 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Thomas v. State. When the evidence raises questions of fact for the jury and such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal by the trial court does not constitute error. Young v. State, 283 Ala. 676, 220 So.2d 843 (1969); Willis v. State. A verdict of conviction will not be set aside on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence unless, allowing all reasonable presumptions for its correctness, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince this court that it was wrong and unjust. Duncan v. State, 436 So.2d 883 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1047, 104 S.Ct. 720, 79 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); Johnson v. State, 378 So.2d 1164 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. quashed, 378 So.2d 1173 (Ala.1979).
In reviewing the evidence presented by the state in the instant case in the light of the legal principles set out above, we find that the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the capital offense charged in the indictment.  Accomplices R.H. and Brasher, testifying for the state, implicated the appellant in the kidnapping and murder.  Their testimony was corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime.  The following fibers matched fibers from the spare tire cover in the trunk of the appellant's automobile: a fiber found on a sock that the victim was wearing at the time of her abduction; a fiber found on the duct tape around the victim's ankles; and six fibers found on the duct tape around the victim's waist.  Numerous fibers found on the victim's clothing and on the duct tape around her waist were identical to fibers from the carpet in Brasher's automobile.  Red fibers from some type of woven material were found in the victim's hair and on her body. (The testimony did not affirmatively prove that these fibers were from the red scarf used to strangle the victim; however, such a conclusion could have been reasonably inferred by the jury.)  Duct tape of the same type used to bind the victim was found hidden in the appellant's home.  A receipt stuck to a Coca-Cola can found in the garbage bag that was attached to the victim's body when it was discovered was traced to the building where the appellant was employed.  An injury to the victim's neck was consistent with the type of injury one would sustain if injected with a syringe.
Clearly, the state proved a prima facie case of the capital offense charged. Thus, the denial of the appellant's motion for a judgment of acquittal was proper.
V.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements made by her to the police and the evidence seized as a result of searches conducted pursuant to search warrants issued for the search of her home and automobile.
On January 18, 1991, three days after the discovery of the victim's body, the appellant was interviewed by an investigator at the sheriff's office. At that time, all persons who could possibly have information about the crime were being interviewed.  She was accompanied by her attorney, and the interview lasted about one and one-half hours.  At the time, the appellant was not a suspect, was not in custody, and was not given Miranda warnings.  Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).  The victim's husband, Ray Higginbotham, was the prime suspect at the time, and the questioning of the appellant concerned primarily her relationship with Ray Higginbotham.  She offered no information pertaining to the crime, but she did offer her assistance in the investigation.
On January 25, 1991, the appellant telephoned the investigator she had spoken to and told him that she wanted to come in and give information that might assist in the investigation.  She came to the sheriff's office alone and gave the investigators a list of persons who she claimed had motives for killing the victim.  She did not include R.H. and Brasher on her list.  She again offered her assistance in the investigation.
On January 31, 1991, two investigators visited the appellant at her home.  Her grandmother and her daughter were present.  The investigators asked her if she had any duct tape in her home that might be of the type found on the victim's body, and they asked her if she would be willing to give them a hair sample.  She stated that there usually was duct tape in her home and that she would look for it, that she would be willing to give a hair sample, and that she had nothing to hide.  However, she never produced any duct tape and she did not give a hair sample.  During this visit, the appellant was not in custody, no Miranda warnings were given, and Ray Higginbotham was still considered the "prime suspect."
On February 14, 1991, the appellant contacted Lieutenant Linn Moore, one of the investigators in the sheriff's office, and said that she wanted to come in and talk. She came to the sheriff's office accompanied by her attorney. The interview lasted about two hours and was tape-recorded with the appellant's knowledge.  According to Moore, by this time, the appellant had become a suspect.  During this interview, she told Moore that she had met and talked with the victim the day before the victim's disappearance, and that on the date of the victim's disappearance, she saw the beaten, bound, and gagged victim lying in the back of Brasher's automobile, which she said was parked on the ramp of Interstate Highway 65 at the Alabaster exit.  She also told Moore that R.H. and Brasher had subsequently come to her home, that they had taken her automobile and a credit card, and that she was afraid of them.
The appellant contends that her statements to the investigators were obtained in violation of her rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.  She argues that they were obtained by coercion and without Miranda warnings and that they were therefore involuntary.3 Miranda warnings are required only when a suspect is both in custody and subjected to interrogation. 384 U.S. at 477-78, 86 S.Ct. at 1629-30. It is clear in this case that the appellant was not in custody at any time during the four interviews she had with the investigators. There was no significant deprivation of her freedom of action. The interview in her home, which she particularly complains about, was politely conducted, she was not compelled to answer questions, and she could have terminated the interview at any time. In fact, the interview was terminated by the appellant's grandmother.
Moreover, the record shows that the statements made by the appellant during the four interviews were completely volunteered and made under circumstances and in an atmosphere totally devoid of coercion or any compelling influences.  No presumption of coercion could conceivably arise under the circumstances presented here.
The appellant contends that the search warrants issued for the search of her home and automobile were defective because, she says, they were based entirely on hearsay. There is no merit in this contention. The record shows that the information upon which the affidavit and search warrants were based was the confession of accomplice R.H. and other facts developed during the investigation that were within the personal knowledge of the affiant. The information furnished by R.H. and the other information was sufficient for the issuing magistrate to find probable cause for the search. The search meets the totality-of-the-circumstances test for determining probable cause of Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). See Jackson v. State, 534 So.2d 689 (Ala.Cr.App.1988).
For the above reasons, the trial court's denial of the appellant's motion to suppress her statements and the evidence seized in the search of her home and automobile was proper.
Having addressed all issues raised by the appellant on appeal, and finding no merit in them, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
McMILLAN and MONTIEL, JJ., concur.
TAYLOR, J., dissents with opinion.
BOWEN, J., joins in the dissent.
TAYLOR, Judge, dissenting.
In making his objection to the court's charges, defense counsel said:
"We further make exception, Your Honor, to the accomplice statute—I mean the accomplice charge where the Court failed to make a significant distinction between a felony murder doctrine and accomplice liability in that the accomplice liability requires a greater showing of the defendant's individual intent."
The court responded:
"Well, the Court has given considerable thought to all the possible lesser included offenses, and after such consideration finds no rational basis for giving those offenses based on the facts of the evidence as presented by the state in this case. Anything else?"
(Emphasis added.) This is as adverse a ruling as can be made, and preserves this issue for our review on the merits.
FOOTNOTES
1. Although the identity of this substance was not proven, the autopsy of the victim showed the presence of phenobarbital in her blood.
2. In exchange for R.H.'s testimony, the state agreed not to move to transfer his case to circuit court where he would be tried as an adult, but agreed that it would pursue his case in the juvenile system.  In return for Brasher's testimony, the state agreed to dismiss the murder charge pending against him, allow him to plead guilty to kidnapping in the second degree and to receive a 13-year sentence, and recommend probation with the understanding that the state's recommendation on probation would not be binding upon the trial court.
3. We note that the appellant's statements are exculpatory; however, Miranda makes no distinction between inculpatory and exculpatory statements. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 477, 86 S.Ct. at 1629.
===========================================
===========================================
Joanna 11/30/11  10:48pm
or try here:
Nancy Breckenridge
life sentence [1991] capital murder
Alabama prison: Julia Tutwieler ? moved?
the woman who murdered my husband's first wife.
Here is the story:
And here is a newspaper article that shows the love spell that another
one of her victim's was under.  George Howard lynn III.  Daniel,
forget it - it is another one of those newspapers like the Stalin's
daughter article...
Page 1B
Jailed wife caused man's death wish
most of the article is on page 3B
Page 3B
DEATH  Continued from page 1B...
None of this was available on the internet a few years ago, last time
I tried Googling.
There is one more newspaper I WISH I could find - A Montgomery paper,
told the story of George's shoot out with police
and crashing into the McDonald's
just after Christmas that year - 
the reporter noticed that George had
a "strange attachment" to his wife.  It was this article that woke me
up to the witchcraft.  My husband had given me the paper.  I read it
and read it over and over.  Then I took it back to my husband and said
for him to look at this.  Even the newspaper reporter can see it.
Ray, who had seen Nancy's altar to satan in her house, then believed
that George had a spell on him.  But he did not yet know there were
spells on him.
The next spring I went to visit George in the hospital.  He knew he
was under a spell.  He didn't believe in witchcraft when he married
Nancy [only 3 days after meeting her], but he came to believe it.
After Nancy went to prison,
life for him was unbearable because he couldn't be with Nancy.  He
would never say anything bad about her and couldn't bear to hear me
say anything bad about her.
He told me many things.  one thing was that Nancy had tried to get him
to murder my husband so that he couldn't testify against her.  I asked
him, why didn't you do it?  He said that she insisted she was
innocent, so he figured if she was innocent there would be nothing to
worry about.  He didn't realize her guilt until the trial was
underway.
When he saw that she was guilty he went and got drunk and had an
accident and got the DUI that is mentioned in the article above.  When
the police tried to pull him over just before the shoot-out, all he
thought was that they would impound his car and then he couldn't go
visit Nancy.  When he crashed into the MacDonald's he reached under
his seat and got his gun and fired into the air.  He wanted the cops
to kill him.
The demons had made a deal with Nancy that she and George could have 7
years of happiness IF Nancy did something to her own daughter that
George would not say what it was, but that it was disgusting, and even
Nancy did not do it.
===========================================
Daniel  12/1/11   11:44am
Joanna, this is very disturbing info, did this happen to YOUR life? I am confused.
===========================================
Joanna 12/1/11   12:56pm
I married into it.  I married Ray 2 years to the day after his first
wife was killed, and after the murderess, Nancy, was convicted and
sentenced.  But the story wasn't over.  Ray had his heart attack the
next spring.  Nancy appealed several times, and lost the appeals thank
God.  She can't appeal anymore, she has used them up.  They caught her
practicing witchcraft in prison. Then George, Nancy's new husband
under a love-spell, had his "shoot out" with the police.  .
Nancy put the love spell on George within days after the murder.  The
idea was to cover up that she had a motive to kill Pam.  George
married her after knowing her for only 3 days.  Ray was acquainted
with George, but they are very different people with nothing in common
except they belonged to the same singles club where they met Nancy.  I
did not meet George until after the shoot out, when he was paralyzed
in the hospital.
 Ray did not know it, but Nancy had earlier put the same love spell on
him that she had put on George just after the murder.  But Ray was a
different personality than George.  George was very confused about
what love is – he misinterpreted his feelings.  Ray had a better
handle on what love is and is not.   The demons couldn't make the
spell work anywhere near as well on Ray as they could on George.  It
was all very educational for me to watch. Demons don't know anything
about love – just a pseudo-love, attachment, obsession,
sentiment...
I made some bad mistakes.  like going to a "white" witch [a
charismatic] for help to get the spells off.  But I was rescued from
these errors just before I was baptized, and after baptism I was
horrified in looking back.  God is merciful.
===========================================
Minas  12/1/11   7:15pm
So RH, who was your 3rd husband(?) and was Nancys boyfriend, helped kidnap and murder his ex wife, then got off for testifying against Nancy and the other guy. right ? And you married Ray and are now divorced, but you didn't know any of this(I hope)when you married him ?
===========================================
Joanna 12/1/11   10:34pm
The court papers aren't clear.  RH is Ray's oldest son, Rayford – the
17-yr-old at the time.  I guess because he was a minor they had to use
his initials.
Ray's side of the story, and it is truthful, is this:
He and Pam had been happily married for a time with 3 handsome healthy
children [8, 4, 2] and a thriving business they ran themselves. They
recently purchased a house.  Pam was a petite 102 lb. beauty - very
young, Ray had taken her from an orphanage while she was still a minor
and married her.  He was much older, mid 20's when he met her, and
already had a son from a first marriage: Rayford [RH in the appeal
papers].
one day Pam's personality changed.  It happened over night.  He could
pinpoint the day.  She started drinking beer all night and sleeping
all day.  She stopped doing housework, stopped cooking, stopped
reading books to the kids.  She would leave the house for several days
with no explanation.  She started taking money from the business and
it would disappear.  When Ray asked her why she was doing this she
would cry, "I don't know."  Ray changed the bank accounts so that her
name was not on them anymore.  She kept writing checks anyway- for
what?  Cash.  She was giving it to a boyfriend.  She got arrested for
the bad checks.  Ray had to cover the checks to get her out of jail.
He kept thinking she would snap out of this.  Ray's family – this
included Rayford – started to hate Pam for all the trouble she was
causing.  Ray divorced her, joined a singles club, and met Nancy
Breckenridge.
Nancy was a fancy educated person, she gave lectures at universities.
Ray was just a grease monkey with a GED.  She wooed the younger kids
with gifts and impressed the older ones – Rayford [RH]– with her fancy
car and nice clothes.  Nancy decided she wanted Ray.  But then Pam
came back home.  Nancy didn't like this and wanted Pam out of the
picture.  Rayford {RH} felt the same way, so Nancy persuaded RH to
help her scare Pam out of town.  Just to rough her up a bit and get
her to leave town.  Rayford enlisted his neighbor and best friend,
Eugene Brasher, to also help with the plot.
Remember that Nancy is an accomplished witch [not a wiccan] whose
mother was also a witch.  She is an avowed Satan worshipper with an
altar to Satan in her home.  She has ways of getting people to
co-operate with her.
[actually it is unknown whether Nancy's mother was a witch or not.
Nancy bragged that her mother was a witch.
But it might not have been true.]
on December 16, 1990 Nancy phoned Ray and said that she was at a
nearby grocery store parking lot and had a car load of X-mas gifts for
the kids, would he please come get them and bring the kids so she can
say one last good bye to them.  She didn't want to come to the house
with Pam there.  Ray sensed something was up, but he went anyway.  And
Nancy was not there at the grocery store as she had said was...  When
he returned Pam was gone.  Her pack of cigarettes was on the table.
He knew that she would not have left them behind...
That night Nancy phoned Ray and asked him to marry her, saying that he
would never have to work, that she made plenty of money, blah blah...
Ray said no thank you.  A week later Nancy married George Howard Lynn
III – to everyone's surprise, including George who could not believe
he would marry somebody after knowing them for only 3 days.  They had
met at that same single's club where Ray had met Nancy.
When it was clear that Pam had disappeared, Ray became the prime
suspect.  But when Pam's body was found, there was evidence that it
wasn't Ray who dunnit.  The case wasn't closed, but it was very much
at a standstill.  Eventually the detectives figured out it was Nancy.
But there was no proof until after Eugene and his girlfriend broke up.
 Eugene had confided in the girlfriend and after the break-up she went
to the police with the information.
I met Ray in the Spring of 1992.  I lived in Tennessee, and my evil X
had moved to Birmingham.  I thought if I could establish residency in
Birmingham, then I could get a change of venue [a different judge in
my custody battle] and get my kids back.  So I made some exploratory
trips to B'ham and met Ray and we struck a deal that I could use his
address in exchange for help around the house 2 days a week.  He
started to court me and he told me everything about the murder, and
that Nancy bragged about being a witch.  He showed me all the
newspaper clippings from the B'ham paper, and introduced me to his
mother and friends.
We were married December 16, 1992 – two years after Pam's death.   I
knew everything that was possible to know at the time.   I did not
know he was under a spell that prevents him from ever being happy with
anyone.  I did not know he was going to have a heart attack.  I was in
for a ride... [which ended in my Baptism].
Here's what I wrote to Daniel:
I married into it.  I married Ray 2 years to the day after his first
wife was killed, and after the murderess, Nancy, was convicted and
sentenced.  But the story wasn't over.  Ray had his heart attack the
next spring.  Nancy appealed several times, and lost the appeals thank
God.  She can't appeal anymore, she has used them up.  They caught her
practicing witchcraft in prison. Then George, Nancy's new husband
under a love-spell, had his "shoot out" with the police. 
Nancy put the love spell on George within days after the murder.  The
idea was to cover up that she had a motive to kill Pam.  George
married her after knowing her for only 3 days.  Ray was acquainted
with George, but they are very different people with nothing in common
except they belonged to the same singles club where they met Nancy.  I
did not meet George until after the shoot out, when he was paralyzed
in the hospital.
 Ray did not know it, but Nancy had earlier put the same love spell on
him that she had put on George just after the murder.  But Ray was a
different personality than George.  George was very confused about
what love is – he misinterpreted his feelings.  Ray had a better
handle on what love is and is not.   The demons couldn't make the
spell work anywhere near as well on Ray as they could on George.  It
was all very educational for me to watch.
I made some bad mistakes.  like going to a "white" witch [a
charismatic] for help to get the spells off.  But I was rescued from
these errors just before I was baptized, and after baptism I was
horrified in looking back.  God is merciful.
===========================================
Minas 12/2/11   4:25am
Seems like rays first wife was put under a spell too, by someone. 
 What became of Nancy's mother. It would seem she must have know, after the fact, and even before the murder what Nancy had planned and done, even perhaps assisting with the whole thing. Wasn't she ever charged with anything ? How about Nancy's daughter you had mentioned, what happened to her. So, did RH get let off ? and Eugene,  is he still in prison ?
 Saying this with all seriousness, i think you should write a book about this and other events that happened to you, such as HOOM, it would make a great movie
===========================================
Joanna 12/2   12:01pm
yes, according to the white witch [who truly believed she was serving
God with "good" forces and "good" powers from God] somebody had PAID a
witch to put a spell on Pam and it was done out of envy.  We see these
ads for buying spells in the back of psychic-type magazines.  This
made perfect sense:
- Pam had made a drastic overnight change.  From good to bad.
- her situation was enviable.  She went from having nothing
[orphanage] to having everything.  Ray was everything for her:  he was
her father, her older brother, her best friend, and her husband.  She
had a sweet shy personality.  Both she and Ray had sympathy; charity
for the poor, having both been raised in poverty themselves.  They
were young and good-looking and very happily married.
- whenever Ray asked her WHY she was doing these uncharacteristic
things, she said, "I don't know."  This is exactly what Ray said to me
when I asked him that same question.  3 months after we were married
Ray told me we needed to get a divorce.  I asked why.  He said, "I
don't know.  I love you.  My kids love you.  My mom loves you.  My dogs
love you.  I don't know."  This is how the rest of our marriage went.
With one hand he pushed me away and with the other he pulled me
towards him.
Later when we knew what was happening, and Ray finally understood why
Pam had changed, I asked him who could have done it - who had the
spell put on Pam.  I thought it might have been Pam's mother from the
horrible abusive things Ray had told me about Pam's mother.  But Ray
said, no, it wasn't her style.  A few days later Ray told me he thinks
he knows who put the spell on Pam, but he would not say who, because
the person had since died.  Ray had an almost superstitious attitude
about speaking ill of the dead.  But I could tell by Ray's face that
the mystery of Pam's behavior change had been resolved for him.
Nancy's mother.  I know very little.  She lived with Nancy and Nancy's
daughter.  I know she hated Ray after Nancy was imprisoned.  My guess
is that Nancy convinced her mother that she had been framed and that
Ray was the real killer.  That's what Nancy tried to make George
believe.  But I can't remember even the things that Ray did say about
her.  I don't think she was any key figure, I don't believe she
testified at the trial.  If she did, neither George nor Ray mentioned
it, to the best of my memory.
After Nancy was in put in prison Ray started getting threatening phone
calls.  He warned me about answering the phone.  The detectives were
maybe going to place a tap, so he told me to keep records of the calls
if I answered one.  I got a caller ID for Ray, and in those days the
technology was not fine-tuned and it DID give us unlisted numbers.
From this Ray discovered Nancy's mother's unlisted number and found
that she had been calling.  The mother seemed to be more upset after
Nancy lost an appeal, and stepped up her calls after losing appeals.
Nancy's daughter was a preteen at the time.
It's in that appeal paper that Rayford, 17, [RH] was not charged with
anything, but that Eugene Brasher, 19, was given a sentence.  But, it
says, they went easy on him in exchange for his testimony against
Nancy.  That surprises me.  Eugene was Ray's neighbor's son, and I
seem to remember him being there, I even remember [I think] meeting
him.  If my memory is correct, he was not in jail...

(Actually, it was Eugene's father who I met.  Eugene was in jail.)
But both Eugene and Rayford had been stunned by the crime.  They
thought that the idea was to "rough up" Pam and get her to leave town.
 George believes that was the original idea, that Nancy didn't intend
to kill Pam.  Nancy put Pam alive in her trunk [fibers were found
embedded in Pam's feet where Pam had tried to kick her way out of
Nancy's trunk].  When Nancy opened the trunk, George believes she
expected Pam to still be alive.  But we will never know, because Nancy
lies about everything to everyone.  Nancy bragged to George that she
strangled Pam with her very strong hands.  But George thinks she was
just bragging.  Nancy likes to appear fearsome and powerful.
Both Eugene and Rayford feared for their lives after Pam's murder.  I
know Rayford started carrying a gun.  All the rednecks have hunting
rifles, but this was a smaller handgun that he kept in his glove
compartment.  I assume without question that both boys were under
spells to keep quiet.
In the first weeks after the murder, Ray's mother, Annie, stood by
helplessly at this time as if watching a movie, unable to get involved
to help Ray with the children or the house, and terrible things were
happening because he had no help.  DHR was going to take his kids
away, he had to send them to an aunt in New orleans, and then SHE
tried to take the kids permanently, being childless herself...  what a
mess!  When Ray was the prime suspect the detectives would come and
take him in for questioning that lasted 2- 3 days.  Certain "friends,"
figuring Ray to be a goner, came and helped themselves to his tools
out of his yard.  I asked Annie, why didn't she help Ray during this
time.  Guess what her answer was?: "I don't know."
I thought that Ray might sell the story rights for a book or movie.
But, he said it was too painful for him.  Too personal.  But today if
the surviving family wanted to write a book, I'd co-operate.  That's
not going to happen, though.  The demons have made sure that I've been
taken out of the picture and out of their lives.  They don't even know
that there was witchcraft involved in what happened to them.  George,
too, kicked me out of his life when I started making arrangements for
him to be catechized [and thus eventually exorcized in baptism].
George knew he was under a spell.  He was convinced he loved
Nancy, even knowing it was a spell.

Back in the 70's and 80's I used to follow soap operas.  one thing I
noticed is that there would be no stories, no plots, unless some
character was lying and deceitful.  Why are we interested in these
things?  If Ray or George had made it into the Church, THEN this would
be a wonderful story to tell.   But it was a failure.   I live in a
different world now.
What good was in my time with Ray?    For me, I did get my kids back,
and with Ray's help, but only after I realized that I had been
disobedient to God in marrying the evil-X in the first place.  I found
the Church where I was baptized.  I learned to discern white
witchcraft.  I came to trust the Church above everything [which was
not true before the white witch failed to do a complete job.]  I saw
how demons work, and how people are affected differently depending on
their will and their faith.
And I think there was some good for Ray, too, despite his end.  I was
able to mitigate his fate.  He should have died with his first heart
attack.  But, by being there, where the demons did not want me to be,
I was able to get him to the hospital in time.  That night they
visited me in a dream to rough me up and get me to leave.  But the
more they wanted me gone, the more I insisted on staying.  By being
there I was able to prevent the New Orleans aunt from taking Ray's
kids which she desperately wanted.  As soon as she heard of Ray's
heart attack she breathlessly excitedly phoned me.  I remember my
phone conversation with her:
"I can be there in 8 hours!  I've done it before!  I've got a life
insurance policy on Ray!"
I felt like the vultures were descending, "Lynda, Ray's not dead yet."
 I could feel her iciness through the phone lines. I was in her way. She saw
me as the reason she would remain childless, I was standing between
her and her golden opportunity.  So, to get the blame off of me
entirely, I added, "Ray still has some time to live.  Maybe by the
time he dies Rayford will be old enough to care for the boys."
Interesting.  This is exactly what happened when Ray had his 2nd and
fatal heart attack in 2001.  The boys were then in high school, and
Rayford took them into his home.  Lynda didn't even want them anymore
at that age.
Soon after Ray's 1st heart attack, later in the spring, Rayford
graduated from a private h.s. diploma program that he himself had paid
for [not a GED].  I had taken a job in a gas station deli to help with
the household finances; Ray couldn't work much.  I gave Rayford a $100
graduation gift, which was a considerable amount for my situation and
income.  Rayford knew it.  He came to the deli and asked me why I had
done that.  This gave me the opportunity to talk to him about "Aunt
Lynda" and how she was a self-serving person and ready to betray Ray
for her own purposes.  I told him that the doctors had given Ray 5
years to live, that I wanted him [Rayford] to be prepared to take the
boys in five years.  Rayford looked shocked. But he did just that.
 He built a career and bought a house.  And 8 years later, when
Ray died, he took the boys into his home.

===========================================
Minas 12/2/11   1:51pm
Well, it's true that, at least in this case, truth is stranger than fiction. You have a very good style of writing and telling a story, I still think you should try to right a book about all this,say, based on a true story with the names changed. I mean, it even has a happy ending... at least, somewhat, right. And it would also be instructive too
 If Nancy's mother was also a witch, then I can't believe she could not have had a part on the murder.
Reminds me of a story my mother had told me long ago about my uncle, her younger brother in Crete. He died under mysterious circumstances, a mysterious illness of some sort after taking up with a witchy woman he met when he went to the big city from his mountain village. The family believed he had had a spell put on him and she killed him with black magic out of jealousy over something. I can't remember all the details. Here is the only photo of him that I had asked my mother about when she related the story. It is dated 1928. He is wearing the traditional Cretan mans attire.
===========================================
Daniel 12/2/11   3:56pm
Well, it is a bit hard for me to totally understand Joanna's misfortune with some of her past maritial history.
But, I too have witnessed the effects of demonic evil in ....my born family, especially in my God-hating mother.
I have spent a life-time in struggling to understand what made her tick and why she did me and her other children SO much harm and evil.
I knew that she, hated God and blamed him for all  her troubles, but later when talking with my half-sister, who was very close to her, it was revealed that...throughout her life, my mother often consulted tarot cards and other means of....communication with fallen spirits, in order to make all her life's decisions.
Of course, to say such things to many modern progressive people today, makes one look like a looney...i.e. that evil spirits actually a do exist and that they do influence human affairs, if we let them. or s worse yet, if we INVITE them in!
Also, in my life, I have encountered various other disturbed people, who clearly were acting badly, because of the evil influences  inside them, not merely because of 'mental unbalance'..i.e. they were possessed
And too, I have spoken with some, such as a former tenant of mine, who claimed to be a, WICA 'White Witch'.
She thought that she had power OVER the spirits, and that she could make them do, HER will. (that in itself, is a main tool of the Evil One).
She also claimed that she performed white (i.e. good) witchcraft, not black ( bad) witchcraft.
But in the turbulent 3 or so years that she and her family were my tenants, I SAW what kind of 'good' she did!!...I only witnessed 'black' deeds from her.
She had a real gift, for separating people, turning one against the others, and for general trouble-making, & harming others, to her...delight.
Though, being born and raised an RC, she had rebelled against that, ( as many seem to do),and was VERY anti-Christian.!
Years ago, when I was the caretaker of an isolated OCA retreat camp, near Pt. Reyes, Calif (north of SF), I was ringing my new bells, with both of my hands entwined with the bell ropes, when Nicholai Nicholaievitch Orlowsky, suddenly jumped out from around the corner of the church, holding a machete in his upraised hands, and about to strike me, in a demonic rage, his face as if on fire. He was long-term, demonized,( & in and out of Napa State Mental Hospital, which I already knew about, though I allowed him to visit there (foolishly), as he seemed peaceful.
Apparently, the church bells had excited the demons.
Mentally, I called upon God,(as there was no time to verbally say anything), and suddenly...he froze in mid-air, suddenly became sheepish, put down the machete and walked away.
God and His angels saved me.
Some years later, he was knifed to death in an alley in a bad part of SF. May God have mercy upon his tortured soul.
When I related this attack to Fr. Dimitry Egoroff,( who had allowed Nicholai a to live there, for past years). then a priest stationed in Santa Rosa, ...who had been resident priest of that St. Eugene's Skete,, he wrote me a short note: "Yes, be carefully with Nicholai! He few times tried  kill me, -with knife, with axe. Signed, sinner Dimitry"
SO, I KNOW the Devil and his demons are real, and that they constantly interfere in our human affairs, for our harm and destruction.
Daniel
===========================================
Joanna 12/2/11   5:42pm
Sure sounds like witchcraft to me.  If the whole family was convinced,
there had to be some sure indications.  And making people sick is one
of the first things witches do.  And jealousy is as natural as
breathing for them.  No wonder people develop a fear of strangers.
What is his name?  Do you pray for him?  Was he orthodox?  I know that
demons prefer to defile orthodox souls.  We are some kind of prize
catch for them.  Does anyone in your family remember more?
Witchcraft demon influence is different from the demon involvement in
mental illness or possession, and there are degrees of possession.
Many things seem to indicate the presence of demons and there many
ways to attract them. With Nicholai the axe-wielder – was he psychotic
and then the demons jumped in on the fun? or did the demons come first
and cause a psychosis?    Certainly the tarot cards are a sure way to
attract demons, and if one is deeply into it, then it makes sense that
the demons can have a deeper influence over that person.
Fr. Elias told me he has done nine exorcisms with the St. Nicholas
icon.  He believes in all the cases, and has verified this with some
of the cases, that the possessions were caused by the orthodox person
victim having made use of some kind of a psychic or shaman type
healer.
Read this interesting story, if you have some time.  We see a man who
is not under a spell, does not exhibit external signs of possession
[voice changing, seizures, barking] but clearly is influenced by
demons: filthy language, self-mutilation, cannibalism.   But his
influence over others is strictly by his charm and not by any use of
demonic spells.
We never knew if Nancy's mother was a witch.  Nancy says she was.  I
tend to believe it because Nancy's mother lived in the house and HAD
to know about the altar to Satan which took up a whole room.  We
expect that Nancy was a member of a coven, she succeeded in involving
others in the practice when she was in prison.  George explained that
the "magic" is more powerful when there are witches working together
rather than a lone witch.  But why did Nancy's mother resort to
threatening phone calls, rather than just send a spell?  The white
witch never mentioned Nancy's mother or a coven.
===========================================
Joanna 12/2/11   7:18pm
In this photo Rayford looks just like his dad did at that age [38],
except that Ray had a trimmed beard.
The other photos of Rayford on the internet also look like Ray, but
this photo is the closest to the spirit that Ray had, with a
reserved smile.  Ray never smiled so boldly or freely as Rayford does
in his other photos.  But, otherwise, except for the age, they could
almost be twins.
--
"Mark has not signed, therefore we have accomplished nothing."
===========================================
George Howard lynn III
A.B. degree
limestone College
May 1969
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-926020.html
Article: Eight Pipe Bombs Found
Article from:The Washington Post Article date:December 30, 1994
Police found eight pipe bombs inside an apartment belonging to a man who said he had a death wish when he crashed his car into a restaurant after a high-speed chase and shootout with police.
George Howard Lynn III, told police after Tuesday's chase he was despondent because he was not allowed to see his wife, who is serving life in prison for murder, and wanted someone to kill him. ...
Police found eight pipe bombs inside an apartment belonging to a man who said he had a death wish when he crashed his car into a restaurant after a high-speed chase and shootout with police.
George Howard Lynn III, told police after Tuesday's chase he was despondent because he was not allowed to see his wife, who is serving life in prison for murder, and wanted someone to kill him. He wanted to commit suicide but couldn't, he said Wednesday from a Birmingham hospital, where he was listed in fair condition.
Lynn, 50, said he and a housemate intended to set off the explosives in an empty field, but did not intend to hurt anyone. The bombs ranged in size from 4 to 18 inches, and one that was filled with gunpowder, shell casings, nails and keys was defused, police said.
http://www.highbeam.com/help/help.hbr
===========================================
March 15, 2014 remembering:
I can make you sick just by looking at you.
I tried the other one...
I remember either Ray or George [or both] telling me that when they first met Nancy she told them she was a witch, "I'm a witch and I can make you sick just by looking at you."
I remember George telling me about a conversation he had with Nancy after he realized that she was doing witchcraft.  He asked her, why, and she said, "I tried the other One, and He didn't work."

===========================================
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/kce5vje38k90/?&v=c&th=144c274dc5a230d8
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/17cd85yoaregk/?&th=144c3117ce1e8903&q=katy&v=c&s=q
email from Katy gmail March 14, 2014
===========================================



I took these photos after halloween.  Probably 1997 or maybe 1996.
(not 1998)  (not 1995)
13021 Hwy 25 Calera AL

The expression on Ray's face is familiar to me.  The demons are causing him distress because of my presence.

Ray is hiding his right hand in his jacket.  His index finger tip is bandaged because of an injury he received loading transmissions on his truck on halloween afternoon.  When he set the transmission down in the truck his finger was caught under it.  He said he heard it crunch like a chicken bone.




==========================================


===========================================


===========================================


===========================================


===========================================