The document outlines a capstone case study focused on a series of serial homicides in Michigan during the 1960s, necessitating detailed responses to specific questions based on the case. The investigation details the disappearance and murder of multiple college-aged women, illustrating the complexities and challenges faced by law enforcement in solving these crimes, including the significance of eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence. Notably, the investigation was marked by several dead ends and the eventual identification of crime scenes, shedding light on the broader implications of criminal investigation techniques and technology.

1. CAPSTONE CASE:
The Student will be required to read the Capstone Case (page
476 of the course text) and respond to the 15 questions on page
483 & 484. Each question will require no less than a one-page
response with appropriate references in APA format double-
spaced, Times New Roman 12point font. Capstone case is due
December 5, 2018, @ 9:00AM.
476
Presented here is the description of a serial homicide
investigation in the 1960s that involved
the sexually motivated murders of seven mostly college-aged
women in Michigan. The
discussion provided here draws primarily on Edward Keyes’s,
The Michigan Murders.1 The
case is longer and more detailed than the other From the Case
File chapter introductions.
It can serve as a capstone discussion of many of the issues
covered in Criminal Investigation,
including the basic problems of criminal investigation, the value
of eyewitness identifica-
tions, the value of other evidence, the potential value of DNA
evidence, how proof can be
established, and the impact of technology on investigations.
Questions for discussion and
review are presented at the conclusion of the case.
Appendix
Capstone Case

2. Capstone CASE
The Coed Murders
The nightmare began on the evening of July 10, 1967,
when nineteen-year-old Mary Fleszar did not return
to her apartment, which was located just a few
blocks from the Eastern Michigan University (EMU)
campus in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Mary was a student at
the university. As is the case in most missing person
investigations, the first task for investigators was to
determine when and where she was last seen. In
reconstructing the last known whereabouts of Mary,
an EMU police officer recalled seeing a girl matching
her description walking near campus at about
8:45 p.m. the night before she was reported missing.
She was alone. Another witness reported he had seen
the girl at about 9:00 p.m. that same night in the same
area, walking on the sidewalk. The witness reported
that a car had driven up next to her and stopped.
According to report the witness gave, the only person
in the vehicle was a young man, and the vehicle was
bluish-gray in color, possibly a Chevy. The witness said
it appeared that the young man inside the car said
something to Mary, she shook her head, and the car
drove off. Shortly thereafter, the same car passed the
witness’s house again and pulled into a driveway in
front of Mary, blocking her path. Mary walked around
the back of the car and continued down the sidewalk.
The car pulled out of the driveway and, tires squealing,
drove down the street. At this point the witness lost
sight of Mary and the vehicle. Mary was never again
seen alive.
On August 7, 1967, a heavily decomposed nude body
was found on farmland two miles north of Ypsilanti.

3. The body was identified as Mary Fleszar through
dental records. It was clear to investigators that the
cause of death was certainly not natural, accidental,
or suicide, given the area in which the body was
found (an open field) and the circumstances of her
disappearance. In addition, given the location of the
body and the fact that no clothes were found in the
vicinity, in all probability she had not been killed
477Appendix
where she was found. Her body had probably been
dumped there. With the identity of the decedent
determined and the crime established as a homicide,
the investigators turned their attention to who had
killed Mary, and where. Matted grass around the body
and the positioning of the body suggested the corpse
had been moved several times. Did the killer return
to the scene, or was the body moved by animals?
The autopsy revealed Mary had been stabbed
approximately thirty times and severely beaten. It
could not be determined if she had been sexually
assaulted. Most puzzling was that the girl’s feet were
missing and her lower leg bones appeared to have
been smashed. Wild animals may have been able to
carry away the feet, but only the killer could have
crushed her leg bones.
Two days before the funeral for Mary, one of the
maintenance men at the funeral home reported to the
police that a man in a bluish-gray Chevy had come to
the funeral home and asked to take pictures of the
corpse, but he had not been carrying a camera. This
was certainly of extraordinary interest to investigators,

4. but the worker could only describe this man as sort
of young and ordinary in appearance. Investigators
had no good leads into who caused Mary’s death.
The description of the vehicle possibly involved in the
crime was the most promising lead, but even that was
nearly worthless.
To the relief of residents, students, parents, and the
police, throughout the spring of 1968 there were
no more murders. It appeared that the murder of
Mary was an isolated event. How wrong this was. On
Monday, July 1, 1968, a second EMU student, twenty-
two-year-old Joan Schell, was reported missing. Police
determined from several eyewitnesses, one of whom
was her friend, that she had last been seen at a bus
stop when a car with three men stopped and talked
to her. The car was described as a late model two-
door with a red body and a black vinyl top. One of the
men in the car was described as being in his twenties,
about 6’ tall, clean-cut, good-looking, and dark-haired.
He was wearing a green T-shirt. After what appeared
to be a brief conversation between Joan and the men,
Joan had gotten into the car and the car drove off. One
of the witnesses told the police he saw one of the men
in the car in the EMU Union at about 11:00 p.m. that
evening, after the building was closed. In checking this
possible lead, the police found no signs of forced entry
into the union, indicating that whoever this was must
have had a key.
The disappearance was, of course, front-page news.
Joan’s boyfriend, Dickie Shantz, who had been absent
without leave from his army base at the time of Joan’s
disappearance, was questioned by investigators but
eventually cleared. Other friends and acquaintances of
Joan were also questioned but dismissed as possible

5. suspects. On Friday, four days after she was reported
missing, the body of Joan Schell was found at a nearby
construction site. The body was nude and covered
with dried blood, although no blood was found in the
area around her body. Most unusual about the body
was that the top one-third was in an advanced state
of decomposition but the bottom two-thirds were well
preserved. In addition, the grass around the corpse
was trampled, perhaps indicating that the body had
been recently disposed of. Where was she killed? And
where was the body kept until it was disposed of?
The autopsy provided few answers. It revealed that
Joan had been stabbed twenty-five times, including
once into the side of her head, with a knife about four
inches long. Due to the presence of semen and related
injuries, it was determined that she had also been
sexually assaulted.
At this point a task force was created to coordinate
the activities of the five police agencies involved in the
investigation, and a reward for information relating
to the arrest of the killer was established. With few
good leads to pursue, a major goal on the part of
investigators was to find where Joan’s body had been
kept prior to being dumped at the construction site.
Investigators needed a crime scene—one that would
provide them with evidence. A sketch of the individual
with whom Joan was last seen was prepared and
disseminated through the media. Two EMU students
came forward to the police and said they had seen
Joan with an individual by the name of John Collins
the night she disappeared. Interestingly, John was
a student at EMU and held a part-time job at the
union (Joan also worked part time at the union). The
information provided by these witnesses did not match
the information provided by the other witnesses, but,

6. determined not to leave any stone unturned, police
found and interviewed John. Investigators learned he
drove a DeSoto that was neither red nor black. John
told the detectives that he had not been in the city
when Joan disappeared and that he was the nephew
of a Michigan State Police officer. Another apparent
dead-end.
On the morning of March 21, 1969, the dead body
of a young woman was found in a cemetery located
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION478
about four miles outside Ypsilanti. The woman who
discovered the body lived near the cemetery, and she
told the police she had seen a white station wagon
leave the cemetery at about midnight the previous
night. Another witness reported that he had seen a
late-model green station wagon cruising around the
cemetery the night before the discovery of the body.
Through items contained in an overnight case found
near the body, the victim was identified as Jane Mixer,
a twenty-three-year-old law student at the University
of Michigan. The victim was fully clothed and appeared
to be deliberately and carefully placed in line with a
grave marker. One of her shoes rested on her lower
abdomen. The victim had two gunshot wounds to her
head and a tightly bound noose from a nylon stocking
around her neck. Was there any significance to the
shoe on her abdomen? Why was she placed at this
particular grave site? And where was she killed? The
autopsy revealed that she had died from the gunshot
wounds to her head; the noose had been placed
around her neck after she was already dead. It was

7. also determined that the victim was currently in her
menstrual period and that she had not been sexually
assaulted.
In tracking the last activities of Jane, the police learned
she had posted a note requesting a ride home on the
ride board at the University of Michigan Student Union.
In searching her apartment, the police discovered on
her desk a note that read, “David Hanson Lvg.
6:30 PM” and a check mark by David Hanson’s name
in the phonebook. The police thought they had a big
break. They quickly found David Hanson, but he told
investigators that he had been in theatre rehearsal at
6:30 p.m. the night Jane disappeared, that he had no
knowledge of her or her attempt to find a ride home,
and that he drove a green Volkswagen. Yet another
dead-end. The police figured the killer had probably
seen the ride request posted by Jane and called her
claiming to be David Hanson, saying he would give
her a ride home and would pick her up at 6:30 p.m.
He was late, so she looked in the phone book, called
David Hanson, and found that he was not at home.
Probably just minutes later, the killer, believed to be
David Hanson by Jane, had shown up at her apartment,
and Jane left with him and was never seen alive again.
Once again, the police had few leads to pursue in the
investigation, and they still did not even have a crime
scene. Investigators spoke with Jane’s boyfriend and
other acquaintances, but they were all cleared of any
wrongdoing. They also checked and interviewed all the
other David Hansons in the area, but to no avail.
The situation was only to get worse. Four days later,
on March 25, 1969, the nude and beaten body of
Maralynn Skelton, sixteen, was found in a remote rural
area one-quarter mile from where Joan Schell’s body

8. had been found the previous summer. The victim had
been severely beaten to death and had numerous
welts covering her body, as if she had been flogged by
a belt with a large buckle. She had sustained massive
head injuries. Other marks on her hands and feet
indicated that she had been bound, probably during
the beating. A piece of dark blue cloth was found deep
in her throat. But most revolting was a tree branch that
protruded from her vagina. All her clothes were piled
neatly nearby except for her underwear. In searching
for witnesses in the area, the police found one person
who had heard someone scream a few nights prior to
the discovery of the body. Another witness had seen
a red car in the area, and another had seen a small,
white two-door car in the area. The police determined
that the last place Maralynn was known to be alive
was a nearby shopping center. She had called a friend
from the shopping center to see if the friend could pick
her up. No other witnesses had seen or heard anything
of Maralynn after that phone call.
The media began to refer to the four homicides as the
“coed murders.” Indeed, the similarities between the
cases were striking. Only the murder of Jane Mixer
appeared substantially different (death as the result of
a gunshot). But to the dismay of everyone involved, the
investigation of the four homicides seemed to be going
nowhere. The major problem in the investigation was a
lack of good information. At this point six jurisdictions
were involved in the investigation, and twenty persons
were assigned to the investigative task force. The task
force received and considered a substantial amount of
information, including the possible relevance of other
unsolved homicides in other jurisdictions in the state
and across the country. One promising suspect that
came to the attention of the police was a man by the

9. name of David Parker. He had been a suspect in the
Boston Strangler homicides and was, coincidently, a
graduate student at the University of Michigan at the
time of the murders. He even had a connection with a
David Hansen (with an e). But after much investigation,
it was determined Parker had not been in the area
when some of the murders occurred. Things were not
going well for investigators. They still did not even have
a crime scene.
On April 16, 1969, a month after the murder of
Maralynn Skelton, the body of thirteen-year-old Dawn
479Appendix
Basom was discovered in a remote residential area
outside Ypsilanti. The girl had been reported missing
the night before and had disappeared within a half
mile of her home as she was walking on the sidewalk.
When found she was clad only in her bra and blouse.
It was determined that she had been dead for less
than twelve hours. She had been strangled with a
black electrical cord, which was still tightly knotted
around her neck. It also appeared that she had been
repeatedly slashed across her torso, gagged, and
raped. Later, the police found some of her clothes in
the area, as if they had been tossed from a moving
vehicle.
Then the police finally got a break, but it did not turn
out to be as big as they hoped. While searching for
witnesses to the murder of Dawn Basom and for a
place where she, or any of the other women, might
have been murdered, a police officer came across

10. an abandoned farmhouse. The farmhouse was just
outside Ypsilanti and close to where some of the
bodies had been found. In searching the farmhouse,
the officer discovered some women’s clothes, jewelry,
and, in the basement, blood and a black electrical
cord—a black electrical cord that matched the one
used to strangle Dawn Basom. A crime scene at last!
The basement of the house, it was reasoned, could
also have been a naturally cool place in which to
preserve a human body (the body of Joan Schell). The
police set up a stakeout operation at the farmhouse
and hoped the killer would return, perhaps with
another victim. The police had difficulties keeping the
discovery and stakeout of the farmhouse a secret,
but they hoped for the best. After a week of watching
the farmhouse, nothing unusual was observed.
Investigators went into the farmhouse once again and
discovered, to their surprise, another earring in the
basement (later determined to belong to Maralynn
Skelton) and a piece of a blouse (that belonged to
Dawn Basom). This meant four things: (1) The killer
had returned to the farmhouse, (2) at least some of
the murders had probably been committed by the
same person, (3) the killer was keeping personal items
from the victims as souvenirs, and (4) the stakeout
did not work very well. A few days later, a fire broke
out in the barn and destroyed it, but the house was
undamaged. Police quickly arrested the arsonist,
Robert Gross, but after questioning and a polygraph,
it was determined by investigators that he was not
involved in the homicides. Shortly after the fire and
the arrest of Gross, a reporter from the Ypsilanti Press,
John Cobb, found five plump lilacs on the driveway
of the farmhouse. Cobb brought the discovery to the
attention of the police, and the police found it strange

11. that only he noticed these flowers, even though many
police officers were in the area. The police wondered
if the five lilacs represented the five dead girls. Did the
killer return again? Could the reporter be the killer?
The police had found a crime scene, but they still had
more questions than answers.
There seemed to be no end to the nightmare. On
June 9, 1969, the body of a woman was discovered
in the rarely used driveway of another deserted
farmhouse in the area. The body was partially clad
in a torn blouse and skirt. On the ground next to
the body were torn underwear and pantyhose, the
pantyhose slashed through the crotch. The woman
had been stabbed multiple times, as though her
killer was in a frenzy, but a single gunshot to her
head was what had caused her death. Her throat
had been cut, but it appeared this had occurred after
her death. She had been sexually assaulted. Once
again, it did not appear that she had been killed
where her body was found. In canvassing the area,
investigators found shoes, buttons from a coat, and
blood in the same general area where several of the
other bodies had been found. All these items were
matched to the unidentified body. After several days
with the body still not identified, the police placed
a photograph of the dead woman’s face in the
newspaper in hopes someone would recognize her.
Sure enough, the victim’s roommate came forward
and identified her as Alice Kalom, a twenty-three-
year-old University of Michigan student. At about
this same time, Alice’s parents read the story in the
newspaper; they identified Alice’s body later that
same day. The police were unable to track the last
activities of Alice. Understandably, investigators were
extremely frustrated. They had six homicide victims

12. and no suspects. They had some evidence to believe
that most, if not all, of the crimes were related (MO),
and they had numerous incomplete descriptions of
vehicles that could have been involved. This was not
much to work with.
After this sixth homicide, a Detroit Free Press reporter
contacted Peter Harkos, a well-known psychic (the
same psychic who identified the wrong person as
the culprit in the Boston Strangler case) and asked
if he could provide a telepathic composite of the
killer. The reporter met with Harkos in California, and
Harkos provided a description. He said the killer was
5’7,” brilliant, maybe a student, loved cars, drove a
motorcycle, had one eye that was bigger than the
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION480
other, had a knife, and worked in gardens. He also said
there would be more victims. Reluctantly, the police
later met with Harkos in Michigan, and he provided
to them accurate descriptions of some of the crime
scenes, including details not previously released, but
none of the information provided new leads for the
police to pursue.
At 11:15 p.m. on Wednesday, July 23, 1969, Karen
Beineman, a nineteen-year-old EMU student, was
reported missing after curfew at her dorm. Her
roommates were the last to see her. She had left
school to go to downtown Ypsilanti to a wig shop,
Wigs by Joan, that afternoon. The police went to the
wig shop with a photograph of Karen, and two ladies
who worked at the shop remembered that Karen had

13. been there and left with a guy on a motorcycle. They
described this man as “kind of nice-looking—neat,
clean-cut, short dark hair, early twenties . . . nice build,
maybe six feet, and . . . had a striped shirt . . . short-
sleeved . . . green and yellow.”2 The bike was “big, loud,
and shiny.”3 The police put out an all-points bulletin for
the missing girl, had a composite sketch drawn of the
man last seen with her, and got a list of registrations
for all motorcycles in the Ypsilanti area. The police
located another witness who had seen the girl on the
motorcycle, and this second witness said the bike was
definitely a Triumph.
Meanwhile, a new Ypsilanti police officer who had
just graduated from EMU received a briefing on the
missing girl and remembered that he had seen a
man in a striped shirt on a motorcycle talking to a
girl on the street on the afternoon in question. He
did not remember the man’s name but knew he was
associated with the Theta Chi fraternity. He decided to
go to the fraternity house and ask some questions. He
learned from the other guys at the house that a person
by the name of John Collins matched the description
but did not live at the house anymore. The officer went
to the location John was said to live and found John
working on one of four motorcycles in the garage. The
officer asked John if he had seen anyone that looked
like him driving around picking up girls that Wednesday
afternoon. John said that he had seen nothing of
the sort. Before leaving, the officer wrote down the
license plate numbers of each of John’s motorcycles,
and John got angry, demanding, “What the hell are
you doing that for? . . . Bug off and play policeman
someplace else.”4 Then the officer found a girl that
he knew was a friend of John’s and asked her if she
had a photo of John he could borrow. She did, and the

14. officer took it to the wig shop. One of the ladies said
that the man in the photo was definitely the guy seen
on the motorcycle with the missing girl; the other lady
said the photo was pretty close. With this positive
identification, John Collins became a prime suspect in
the disappearance of Karen Beineman.
Within minutes of John Collins being identified
as a suspect, the nude body of Karen Beineman
was discovered in a residential area of Ypsilanti,
approximately twenty feet down a gully embankment.
The discovery was treated as top secret. Based on
previous crimes, the police believed the killer often
returned to see the dead bodies, and they hoped
he would do so again. The police removed the body,
replaced it with a store mannequin, and set up
Operation Stakeout. They hoped this stakeout would
work better than the last one. As it grew dark on that
hot, rainy night, the police hid in the nearby bushes
and waited for the killer to return. After a few hours,
an individual was seen by the police running from the
area, but before the police could notify each other as
to what was seen and the direction in which the man
was running, the person had vanished. Thinking that
maybe the person had been able to get close enough
to touch the body, the police checked for fingerprints
on the mannequin, but the only ones recovered
were those of the district attorney who had set the
mannequin in place.
The autopsy on the body revealed that Karen had been
dead for about three days and was probably killed
on Wednesday at around 3:00 p.m. (she was seen
riding away on the motorcycle at about 1:00 p.m.).
She had been strangled and savagely beaten, and

15. semen was present. Her chest and breasts had been
severely mutilated, as if they had been burned with
some type of a liquid or acid. It appeared she also had
been bound, as evidenced by ligature marks on her
wrists and ankles. Burlap material was found in her
throat. The victim’s underwear were recovered from
her vagina. On closer examination of the underwear,
a most interesting discovery was made: tiny head
hair clippings. Where did they come from? Had Karen
Beineman been killed in a barber shop?
Meanwhile, the police maintained surveillance on
their prime suspect, John Collins. Other young women
came forward to the police and said that the man
pictured in the composite had tried to get them to
go for a ride. Another said John had offered her $50
if he could take pictures of her. With the evidence
mounting against John, two young Ypsilanti police
officers took it upon themselves to question him.
481Appendix
They accused him of Karen’s murder, and, in the
process, told him what they knew about the crime.
John provided an alibi to the officers and told them
that his uncle, David Leik, a Michigan State Police
officer, would not be happy they were making such
accusations about him. This premature questioning of
John Collins turned out to be another big mistake—
one of many in the investigation.
During the next several days, the police spent time
verifying John’s alibi for the date and time of the
disappearance and murder of Karen, and it seemed

16. to hold up. Why? Was it true? Or did he have time and
forewarning enough to create an alibi? The police
continued to uncover evidence that at least indirectly
suggested John was the coed killer. The task force,
however, was in turmoil, and it was believed by many
that the investigation was being poorly managed. As a
result, just as the case was about to break wide open,
the governor of Michigan assigned responsibility of the
investigation to the Michigan State Police. The Detroit
Free Press headline read, “The Keystone Kops Get Help.”
At about this same time, David Leik’s wife went to
the basement of her Ypsilanti home to do the laundry
after a twelve-day vacation out of town. She noticed
something quite strange—dried black paint on the
basement floor and also on a ladder. Several small,
brownish spots were found on a shirt hanging in the
basement. She also noticed other items either missing
or out of place. She wondered if John, her nephew, had
any knowledge about the condition of the basement,
as he was the only one with access to the house while
the Leiks were on vacation. She called David at the
state police office and told him about the basement.
Shortly thereafter, David was told by his supervisor at
the state police post that John was a suspect in the
murder of Karen Beineman. Although he found this
nearly impossible to believe, David told his supervisor
what his wife had found in his basement. They agreed
that the crime lab should examine the basement, just
to be sure.
Upon examining the basement, investigators carefully
scraped the black paint off the floor, expecting
to discover blood underneath. An initial test was
immediately conducted on the drops visible under
the paint, and they were determined to be . . . not

17. blood! David then remembered that a varnish stain
was on the floor, dripped there while he was doing a
project a long time ago. Then, while on his hands and
knees on the basement floor, one of the investigators
looked under the washing machine and found several
blonde head hair clippings, clippings that were similar,
it seemed, to those found in Karen’s underwear that
were recovered from her body. Next, several drops of
blood were recovered from the shirt hanging in the
basement. The police finally had what they believed
was a good crime scene, and John Collins was the only
one who had had access to it. Evidence was falling
into place. The hair clippings were in the basement
because that was where Mrs. Leik always trimmed
her children’s hair. The police reasoned that Karen
had been in the basement, and while she was being
tortured and killed, her underwear had been on the
floor. The hair got in her underwear, and John then
put the underwear in her vagina. Then, when cleaning
the basement after he killed Karen, John had noticed
what he thought was a stubborn stain of blood and,
unable to remove it, had decided to paint over it. John
made a mistake; the stain was varnish, and it had
been there previously. When John was questioned and
confronted with his mistake, he “drew a sharp breath
that caught in his throat, and then, as though a plug
had been dislodged, the tears spilled out and ran down
his cheeks.”5
John Collins was arrested, and a search warrant
was issued for his apartment and car. A black paint
spray can, .22 caliber shells, and several knives
were recovered from his apartment, but the police
did not find what they were really hoping to find.
All along, the police believed the killer had been

18. taking and keeping souvenirs from his victims, but
they found nothing of the sort in John’s apartment.
Later it was learned from one of John’s roommates
that after being prematurely questioned by the two
officers, John had carried a box out of the apartment
that could have contained items that belonged to
the victims. The police conducted a lineup for the
purpose of having the wig shop workers identify
John as the man seen with Karen. The police
interrogated Donald Baker, a friend of John’s, and
Donald provided information that destroyed
John’s alibi and portrayed him as a thief who
committed burglaries and stole motorcycle parts.
Donald also said that John often carried a knife on his
motorcycle.
The trial of John Collins for the murder of Karen
Beineman began June 2, 1970. The prosecution had
three primary objectives—three points to prove.
First, the prosecution sought to prove that Karen
had last been seen with John near the wig shop
on his motorcycle. The eyewitnesses were used to
establish this point. Second, prosecutors needed
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION482
to establish that Karen had been in the basement
of the Leik house and probably killed there. The
primary evidence used to establish this link was the
hair found in the basement and the hair in Karen’s
underwear found in her vagina. Third, it needed
to be established that John had been the only one
with access to the home at the time the crime had
occurred there (see Exhibit A.1).

19. The defense offered three counterpoints. First, they
questioned the procedures used by the police to
identify John as the man last seen with the victim.
It was argued that the lineup identification of John
was invalid because the witnesses had earlier been
shown a single picture of John as the perpetrator.
It was argued that this biased the witnesses’
perceptions and identification. Second, the defense
raised questions about the actual whereabouts of
John during the critical time period in question and
argued, through witnesses, that John had a valid alibi
and thus could not have possibly have committed
the crime. Finally, the defense questioned the
methods used to confirm that the victim had, in fact,
been in the basement. They questioned the results of
the hair and blood comparison analysis (remember,
this case took place before the discovery of DNA
analysis). The trial lasted seventeen days, and fifty-
seven witnesses provided testimony. John Collins did
not testify. After five days of deliberation, the jury
found John guilty of the murder of Karen Beineman.
He was sentenced to life in prison without the
possibility of parole.
Some people question why John Collins was never
tried for any of the other homicides believed to be
part of the series. The probable and most likely reason
was that the prosecutors did not believe they had
enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that John committed these crimes. There was little
physical evidence that associated John with the other
murders. It has also been reported that the prosecutor
held back some evidence and did not pursue the
other homicide charges in the event John was found

20. not guilty of the murder of Karen Beineman or he
successfully petitioned for a new trial, which he did
indeed request in 1988.
Eyewitnesses at the wig shop
who saw Collins with Beineman
Hair found in basement
of house and in
underwear of Beineman
Collins was the only
one with access to
the house
Victim: Beineman
Crime Scene:
Leik House
Suspect: Collins
EXHIBIT A.1
The Triangle of Evidence in the Investigation and Prosecution
of John Collins
483Appendix
At least one of the seven murders was not committed
by John Collins. On November 25, 2004, Gary
Leiterman, sixty-two, was charged with the murder

21. of Jane Mixer, the victim who had arranged for a ride
with “David Hanson” and whose body had been found
at the cemetery. Leiterman was subsequently found
guilty and sentenced to mandatory life in prison for
this murder. The conviction was made possible by
advances in crime technology. Upon prompting from
the victim’s relatives, authorities had entered the
DNA profile of Jane’s killer into the Michigan State
DNA database. The DNA was obtained from evidence
recovered from the victim that had been stored for
many years. The print matched that of Leiterman,
whose DNA profile was in the database because of an
earlier conviction for prescription fraud. It is not clear if
DNA evidence is still available for analysis in any of the
other homicide cases.
John Collins maintains that he did not commit the
murder of Karen Beineman or any of the other
murders in which he is suspected. In 1980 he changed
his name to John Chapman. Since being imprisoned,
he has attempted to escape at least twice. He remains
incarcerated in Michigan. See http://mdocweb.state
.mi.us/otis2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=126833 or
search for “John Collins, MDOC number 126833” on the
Michigan State Department of Corrections Web site for
the current status of John Collins.
Questions for Discussion and Review
1. Previously in Criminal Investigation it was
explained that there are often several basic
problems with criminal evidence: (1) At the time
evidence is collected, it is unknown if it relates to
the crime; (2) at the time evidence is collected, it
is unknown if the evidence is accurate; and (3) the

22. evidence is not always as it seems to be. Provide
an example of each of these issues being present
in this case.
2. As discussed, there are various forms and
functions of evidence in criminal investigations.
Provide an example of each of the following in this
case: (1) corpus delicti evidence, (2) identification
evidence, (3) behavioral evidence, and
(4) associative evidence.
3. In the investigation of the murder of Karen
Bieneman, the police identified John Collins as the
suspect, Karen as the victim, and the Leiks’ house
as the place where Karen was killed. What specific
pieces of evidence linked these people and this
place?
4. In the investigation of the murder of Karen
Beineman, give examples of direct evidence and
circumstantial evidence. Also give examples of
inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. Was there
any direct evidence to allow one to conclude that
John Collins had killed Karen Beineman?
5. If you were the defense attorney for John Collins,
what alternative explanations for the evidence
would you have developed to suggest his
innocence?
6. During the investigation, the police discovered
what they thought to be two crime scenes. Identify
these two places. One of the scenes was much
more useful (and valuable) than the other. Explain
why.

23. 7. These crimes and their investigation occurred
in the 1960s, prior to the discovery of DNA and
DNA profiling for criminal investigation purposes.
Consider and discuss how this investigation
may have differed if it took place today, with the
availability of DNA profiling. What might have been
different about the investigation? Be specific. What
important aspects of the investigation would have
likely remained unchanged?
8. Discuss how other technology available today,
besides DNA, could have affected this investigation
if it was conducted now.
9. How was John Collins first identified as a prime
suspect in the murder of Karen Beineman? How
was his name developed, and how was he linked
to the missing girl? John’s name came up in the
investigation prior to his becoming a suspect in the
murder of Karen. Explain what evidence led to this
development.
10. This investigation occurred prior to the widespread
understanding of psychological profiling. Based
on the crimes that were committed and how they
were committed, what could have been inferred
about the characteristics of the killer? What value
might this psychological profile have been in the
investigation?
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION484
11. As discussed, a psychic was used in the
investigation. Was any of the information that he

24. provided accurate? Was it relevant? What value, if
any, did he provide to the investigation?
12. Identify the most significant mistakes that John
Collins made in committing the murder of Karen
Beineman. Explain.
13. Identify and discuss the mistakes detectives made
in investigating these murders.
14. Identify and discuss the one primary dimension
of this investigation that would have differed the
most if it was conducted today rather than in the
1960s.
15. Based on the evidence collected throughout the
investigation do you think John was guilty of the
murder of Karen Beineman? Any or all of the other
girls? Why or why not?
Notes
1. Edward Keyes, The Michigan
Murders (New York: Pocket
Books, 1976).
2. Ibid., 189.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 203–204.
5. Ibid., 283.