#gregory witman

Did Zachary Witman murder his brother?

If you’ve listened to season 1 of Serial, you might remember that in Episode 10 they mention the controversial case of Zachary Witman, currently imprisoned for killing his brother. Here, I’ll attempt to lay down a general view of it.

The Crime

On October 2, 1998, Gregory Witman (13) arrived at his house in New Freedom, Pennsylvania, at around 3:10 pm. He was attacked pretty much as soon as he opened the door, in the entrance foyer, and a scuffle ensued, ending in the house’s laundry room where the worst of the attack happened. Gregory was stabbed over 100 times, at least 65 of those in the area around the neck, to the point he was nearly decapitated. He also had several defensive wounds in his hands. 

That day, Gregory’s older brother Zachary (15 at the time) had stayed home because he was sick. He called 911 at 3:17 pm reporting the finding of his brother. When first responders arrived to the house at 3:25, Zachary was still on the phone with 911 and waiting for them in the open garage. The first officer on the scene, Sean Siggins, described Zachary as “excited” and bouncing up and down, shaking and hysterical. His sweatshirt, hands, pants and socks had bloodstains on them.

8 days later, Zachary was arrested and charged with the murder of his brother. In his trial in 2003, he was found guilty and sentenced to life without parole. In 2007, a judge granted him a new trial, saying Zachary’s lawyer, David McGlaughin had been “ineffective” and shouldn’t have let his bloody socks be entered as evidence. However, after the prosecution appealed, the Pennsylvania Superior Court overturned that ruling and reaffirmed the initial conviction, considering the trial would have come to the same result even if the socks hadn’t been used.

Zachary’s parents have always supported their son and they are convinced that Gregory was killed by an unknown third person. They’ve been fighting to free him, and have been joined by a lot of people claiming the case needs to be revised again.

Zachary’s version

Zachary’s initial statements to police are a little confusing. He says that he left the keys in the lock of the front door for his brother to enter, and that he was sleeping in his parents’ bedroom upstairs when he heard the front door open and close, and assumed his brother had arrived. But at 3:15 pm, a friend of Gregory called the house asking for him, and Zachary told her he wasn’t home yet. Zachary says that shortly after hanging up, he heard noises downstairs that sounded like “roughhousing”. He went down to check, found Gregory dead in the laundry room and called 911. He didn’t see anyone else.

The Phone Call

The friend of Gregory who called was Eryn Jeffery. She knew that Gregory usually arrived home at around 3:07, and she initially called at 3:09. She says someone picked up the phone downstairs (she could tell because it was a flip phone and it made a distinctive sound) and hung up quickly. When she called again, Zachary answered after three rings. She stated he was talking from the phone upstairs (no distinctive sound) and he sounded normal. Eryn noticed the time of this call was at 3:15 pm, but Zachary told police it was before 3 pm. This testimony again is a bit odd, considering he was supposedly sleeping, and Eryn knew Gregory wouldn’t be home before 3. Also, he said he heard the noises downstairs shortly after talking to Eryn, so it’s doubtful his time is right.

The Evidence Against Zachary

According to forensic scientist Deborah Calhoun, the bloodstain pattern in Zachary’s sweatshirt means that he was in close proximity of Gregory when the wounds were inflicted, and that the victim was alive at this point (Zachary’s defense claims he got the blood on him when he rolled over Gregory’s body, as instructed by the 911 operator). You can see a picture of the sweatshirt above. She also testified that in her opinion, the blood spots on Zachary’s socks meant that Gregory was standing when they fell on him. Her expertise was questioned by the defense.

The night of the murder, using luminol traces around the house, police found a mound of dirt near the hot tub area outside. This hadn’t been noticed during the initial search in daylight. Buried there, they found a small penknife with blood on the blade that was determined to be Gregory’s. The blade was of 0.3 inches of width and 1.75 inches of length. Sarah Funkie, the forensic pathologist that did the autopsy, testified it was consistent with the stab wounds on Gregory’s body. With time, some knife experts have cast doubt that the flimsy knife could used to stab someone 100 times without breaking, but considering it had Gregory’s blood on it and had been buried, I don’t see how this is relevant. 

Police also found that Zachary had a knife collection that was awfully similar to the murder weapon, as you can see in the picture above.

Along with the knife, they also found athletic gloves with Gregory’s blood on them, which mean they were used to committ the murder and would help explain why Zachary only had a small laceration in his ring finger.

Investigators say they couldn’t find any evidence pointing to other suspects.

The Defense’s Position

The main problem with the case against Zachary is the lack of motive. His parents say the brothers had a close relationship and, as far as I know, no one testified something different on the trial (Of course, we know that parents not always know what’s really going on with their kids). Only one witness appears in the police reports saying that Gregory was scared because Zachary was smoking pot and selling drugs, and he’d threatened him if he told his parents. However, drug tests performed on Zachary showed no sign of drug use and they couldn’t find any evidence of using or dealing in the house. The prosecution didn’t offer any motive during the trial either. We know it’s not a requirement, but in a case as complex at this, not having one only makes more doubts rise.

According to the prosecution’s timeline, Zachary would have had only 7 minutes to kill his brother and bury the knife and gloves before he called 911. Considering he was in control of the crime scene, why not wait longer?  While I do agree with the 911 call part, I don’t think the “just 7 minutes” defense is very strong. If a third person murdered Gregory, they would have also had that same amount of time to do it. The attack was violent and it must have been fairly loud, since there was even a broken table in the house. Zachary claims he heard noises and went downstairs to find his brother dead, so how did a third person managed to disappear so quickly, without leaving any trace behind? And when did they have time to bury the weapon and gloves?

There’s a whole confusion with the path around the house the prosecution say Zachary took after the murder, which was established through the use of luminol. Some of the supposed stops don’t make sense, and it’s probably because luminol lights up not only with blood and the people doing the analysis weren’t experienced in it. Anyway, they didn’t take any pictures or video that would back their claims so I don’t think that evidence helps either side.

They also said police didn’t properly investigate the sighting of a white van around the area at the time of the murder. A witness said it was being driven by a middle aged man that looked confused as to where to go. But Gregory’s coach says he drove his white van to the Witman’s house when he heard about the murder, so it could have been him. Also, the witness saw the van between 3 and 3:15, so if we are talking about too little time to commit the murder, this certainly doesn’t make it better.

All the blood and DNA found in the items examined belonged to Gregory. There was no traces of Zachary in the knife or the gloves. But there weren’t traces of anyone else’s either so does this really help Zachary? The hairs found on Gregory are consistent with belonging to someone in the Witman family, but that’s not strange in a house they all lived in, especially with the murder happening in the laundry room. 

Nail clippings taken from Gregory were never tested. According to former law enforcement George Matheis Jr, who is on the defense’s side, the knife didn’t have any forensic examination (if this is true, how does the defense know it didn’t have Zachary’s DNA?).

Conclusion

This case reminds me a little of the JonBenet Ramsey case, because while it’s hard to understand why he would have killed his brother, there’s also no evidence that supports an intruder theory.

If it was a third person, why would they target a 13 year old? This is no random murder, the rage of the stabbing points to a personal reason. The way the attack went, it would have to mean that the killer was waiting for Gregory, probably inside the house, so again, a pretty targeted attack. And if they went there with the intention to kill him, why bring such a flimsy knife? Unless they were trying to frame Zachary, it doesn’t make much sense. And it’s a pretty big coincidence that this killer chose to attack Gregory on the one day that Zachary stayed home.

Then again, if it was Zachary, it would have had to mean he’d planned it in advance, there’s just not enough time for the brothers to get into some sort of argument and Zachary attacking him in the heat of the moment. Also it’s hard to believe he would sound so normal and calm during that 3:15 pm call, if he’d just stabbed his brother 100 times. He would have at least been out of breath. His little inconsistencies about what he heard or didn’t bother me, just like it bothers me the mistakes of the physical evidence collection (the judge declared inadmissible a good portion of it) and the fact that crucial pieces of evidence weren’t tested. I’d love it if those nail clippings and that knife could be properly examined.

Overall, though, I don’t see much of a chance of Zachary getting out of prison with what we have now. It should have raised enough reasonable doubt during the trial, but it’s not enough to raise reasonable doubt for an appeal. Unless his defense finds concrete evidence of another person’s involvement, he does seem like the likeliest suspect under these circumstances.

Sources:

- A list of articles from the York Daily Record covering the case and trial.

- A case report from Brandon McCollum for the Forensic Science Program in Penn State.

- This brief documentary about the Witmans.