Statement of Facts:
1. The Land Fraud Scheme
Miller testified that in 1974 he and two others, Fred Orlosky and Thaddeus Dedo, set up an elaborate land fraud scheme in which his friend, George Wilhelm, of Pittsburgh, was to be defrauded out of monies that he had received in an insurance settlement. (T.T. 157-74) According to Miller, Goldblum later joined in, and helped direct the scheme. (T.T. 188-210) In the Summer of 1974, Wilhelm was defrauded out of approximately $20,000.00. Wilhelm was led to believe that he could purchase certain U.S. government land in North Carolina through the office of [then] U.S. Senator Richard Schweiker. For the purpose of deceiving Wilhelm into thinking he was dealing with federal officials, a member of the conspiracy named Thaddeus “Ted” Dedo pretended to be “Ken Manella”, an administrative assistant to Senator Schweiker. (T.T. 174) Wilhelm paid money to Dedo, who was impersonating “Ken Manella”, and in return received fake deeds to federal lands in North Carolina. (T.T. 225-231). The deeds were not properly filled out. For example, the party of the second part, normally the purchaser, was left blank. (T.T. 388-389) Wilhelm was not suspicious of the deal, since it had been set up by his friend, Clarence Miller. (T.T. 289, 313-314)
Eventually, Wilhelm suspected that he had been defrauded (T.T. 285-287), went to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and complained of the fraud (T.T. 348-372). During the investigation, Gary Boutwell, an FBI agent, went to Miller’s home unannounced (T.T. 392), where Miller “volunteered to [him] that his friend Wilhelm was buying land from him in North Carolina.” (T.T. 394) However, on October 11, 1974, Wilhelm appeared at FBI offices and gave a statement that the complaint of fraud made three days earlier was a hoax, intended to embarrass Senator Schweiker. (T.T. 373-377) The FBI then terminated its investigation after receiving a letter of declination from the U.S. Attorney Richard Thornbourgh.
• As to both the first and second statements to the FBE concerning the land fraud, no mention was made of Goldblum or of any person resembling Goldblum. (T.T. 300)
• The second affidavit was notarized on October 10, 1974. (T.T. 296) Although miller testified that Goldblum participated in the preparation of this affidavit, an independent witness testified that he attended a tax seminar with Goldblum in Reston, Virginia from October 5, 1976 through October 11, 1976. (T.T. 2162)
• At the time of these events, Goldblum was a lawyer. It is difficult to believe a lawyer would fill out fake deeds in such an amateurish and haphazard way.
• Furthermore, the evidence is fairly clear that the land fraud scheme was in fact exposed to the prosecution by Goldblum. Miller, arrested for Wilhelm’s murder on February 10, 1976, did not tell the police about the land fraud until April 2, 1976. (T.T. 836-837) Goldlbum, through his attorney, had filed motions seeking the FBI records for their investigation of the land fraud prior to that time. It is likely that Miller informed police about the land fraud only after realizing, in late March of 1976 that Goldblum was exposing the fraud through his motion for discovery of the FBI file. (T.T. 834-836). Please keep in mind that with all the police files now missing, what exactly transpired between Clarence Miller and the police cannot be determined.
If Goldblum participated in a land fraud which victimized the same person he now stood accused of murdering, why would he take action to expose the land fraud, especially in the context of his murder prosecution? More importantly, if Goldblum participated in the land fraud scheme, certainly his name would have been contained in the FBI file concerning this incident. That file contained no reference to Goldblum. The police and prosecutors cannot dispute the fact that they were aware that the FBI file contained no reference to Goldblum going into the trial. They had the file for a long time before trial. One can only assume that they reviewed it.
2. The Arson of the Fifth Avenue Inn
In February of 1975, Goldblum’s parents purchased a restaurant named “Fifth Avenue Inn”, and leased it to a corporation owned by Goldblum. A series of bad business decisions led Goldblum to the point of desperation and Goldblum arranged to burn it down. (At trial, Goldblum denied the arson completely.) On November 30, 1975, a fire destroyed the Fifth Avenue Inn. At trial, the prosecution through Miller’s testimony claimed that the homicide victim George Wilhelm was the arsonist.
Did the prosecutors and the police have a reasonable and credible right to believe that the case they were presenting was in fact true? Who was Goldblum’s torch?
The fire occurred on November 30, 1975, at approximately 6:20 p.m. (T.T. 580-581) Miller was seen in the restaurant twice on the afternoon of the fire and was seen parked outside the restaurant between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. by a restaurant employee. (T.T. 1697-1703-05) According to Miller’s testimony, Goldblum asked miller and Thadeus “Ted “ Dedo to burn the restaurant (T.T. 450) and, on another occasion in November 1975, asked Miller, Dedo, and Fred Orlosky to burn the restaurant. (T.T. 454) Miller also testified that Goldblum showed him sterna and holes in the wall. (T.T. 455-56, 461-63) According to Miller, Goldblum was still asking to burn the restaurant when Miller left at 5:30-6:00 p.m., the day of the fire. (T.T. 466) Miller testified that he then went to the movies alone and arrived home at approximately 10:30 p.m. (T.T. 467-468)
• Nobody testified to seeing George Wilhelm at the Fifth Avenue Inn on November 30, 1975, or any other day. There was simply no evidence that Wilhelm was involved in the fire other than the naked testimony of Miller claiming to quote Goldblum. (T.T. 465,471)
• The prosecution stipulated that Wilhelm had an excellent reputation in the community for honesty and peacefulness. (T.T. 2773-2775)
Miller had a strong motive to lie since he was seen at the site of the fire as late as one half hour before the fire started. The prosecution, in adopting Miller’s uncorroborated version, called the murder victim (Wilhelm) an arsonist and never attempted to corroborate this version with Dedo or Orlosky, despite the verified presence of Miller at the scene and his knowledge of the sterna.
• As mentioned previously, attorneys from the District Attorney’s Office have openly admitted that they did not believe Miller when he implicated Wilhelm in the fire. In spite of this disbelief, they did not hesitate to present Miller’s testimony. Perhaps more significantly, this disbelief did not lead them to investigate further.
3. The Murder of George Wilhelm
On February 9, 1976, at approximately 9:20 p.m., (T.T. 1228) the Pittsburgh police were summoned to a multi-level parking garage in the downtown area of Pittsburgh. (T.T. 1175, 1520) The police proceeded to the roof of the Seventh Avenue Garage from which they observed a man, later identified as George Wilhelm lying one floor below on a walkway connecting an adjacent building. (T.T. 1521) When the police reached Wilhelm, he whispered to one of the officers: “Clarence–Clarence Miller did this to me.” (T.T. 1528) . Wilhelm subsequently died from internal bleeding caused by stab wounds at 12:12 a.m., on February 10, 1976. (T.T. 1567-1571). (As related at trial by City of Pittsburgh Police Officer Thomas Pobicki, who was dispatched to the scene of the crime: I was just telling [Wilhelm] , you know, to take it easy and all of a sudden he just said, “Clarence.” That sort of stunned me. I thought he was trying to tell me his [own] name, so I said, “what?” And he said “Clarence Miller did this to me” . . . . We put him on the stretcher . . . he said “I’m going to die! I’m going to die.” (T.T. 1528) )
Clarence Miller was arrested at 11:30 a.m., the following day, February 10, 1976. (T.T. 1360-1362) When questioned by the police, Miller stated that on the previous evening, he had met Mr. Goldblum and they went to a McDonald’s Restaurant where they met Wilhelm. (T.T. 1363-1364) Miller stated that, after a brief conversation, Wilhelm left the restaurant alone, and at approximately 9:10 p.m, Miller and Goldblum left the restaurant and returned to their homes. (T.T. 1364).
After the police questioned Goldblum, they confronted Miller with a discrepancy between the two accounts, whereupon Miller fainted and was transported to a hospital. (T.T. 1372) Later that day, Miller implicated Goldblum in the killing. Several months later, Miller also implicated Goldblum in the remaining crimes with which he was charged.
• The murder of George Wilhelm was not planned.
• The following facts were never-in dispute:
o Neither Goldblum, nor Miller brought a weapon to the meeting with Wilhelm;
o The murder weapon was 1/2 of a grass shear which was in Wilhelm’s vehicle prior to the murder;
o The murder was committed on the exposed top deck of a parking garage in the middle of downtown Pittsburgh at approximately 9:15 p.m. on an evening when all downtown stores were open.
o The victim, the murder weapon, and the bloody gloves were left at the scene of the crime.
These facts point strongly to a spontaneous, unplanned assault. Obviously, a planned murder would include bringing a weapon , a more private site for the crime, and some effort to clean up the site.
Since the murder was unplanned, two people cannot be legally culpable unless both physically participated in the assault.
But there was no evidence of a two-man assault other than the mere presence of two men. Furthermore, the Commonwealth’s evidence presents affirmative evidence that this was a one man assault:
1. The victim made a dying declaration to police that “Clarence Miller did this to me.” (T.T. 1520) At no time did Wilhelm make any kind of reference to Goldblum or to a second attacker, despite the Commonwealth’s contention that Wilhelm knew Goldblum, that Goldblum had cheated Wilhelm and committed arson with him. Furthermore, Wilhelm had plenty of opportunity to implicate Goldblum. He did not lose consciousness immediately after implicating Miller. He remained conscious and in the presence of police as he was transported to the hospital complaining about his facial cuts. (T.T. 1505-1507, 1513-1515).
2. While there was blood on Miller’s clothes, there was none on Goldblum’s, except possibly a barely visible spot on a shirt cuff, which was most likely his own blood. (T.T. 1799-1800).
3. Had this been a two person attack, the victim would likely have been restrained by one attacker while being stabbed by the other. The physical evidence indicates this did not occur. There were defensive cuts on the victim’s hands and multiple cuts and slashes on the entire torso, head and face, indicating a disorganized, frenzied attack on a moving target. (T.T. 1550-56).
4. Although Miller testified that Goldblum, began the assault on Wilhelm by hitting-him in the head with a wrench (T.T. 679), the forensic evidence contradicted this testimony. Specifically, there was no hair, blood, or tissue found on the wrench. (T.T. 1253, 1813) There was no wound to the back of Wilhelm’s head. The only blunt wound to Wilhelm’s head was an abrasion on the right side of his forehead. (T.T. 1569).
Clarence Miller testified that he was offered $50.00 by Goldblum to set up the meeting with Wilhelm.
It was the Commonwealth’s proposition at both Goldblum’s trial and Miller’s trial that Miller’s role in the murder was limited to setting up the fatal meeting and that Goldblum committed the assault. It was also the Commonwealth’s contention that Goldblum owed Wilhelm money from the land fraud and the arson.
Query: If Goldblum and Wilhelm had committed arson together, and Goldblum owed Wilhelm money, why did Goldblum need Miller to set up a meeting between himself and Wilhelm?
Furthermore, while the prosecution contended that Goldblum murdered Wilhelm because he owed Wilhelm $20,000.00, Goldblum, in January, 1976 – a month before the murder – was offered a fire insurance settlement package totaling approximately $185,000.00 and he rejected the offer. (T.T. 2305-2306)
Another inconsistency in the Commonwealth’s theory is the contradictory modus operandi of Goldblum: When it comes to burning his restaurant or attempting to get rid of Miller, Goldblum attempts to hire a surrogate and secure an alibi. But when it comes to killing Wilhelm, Goldblum does it with his own hands and with a witness (Miller) present.
The most remarkable aspect of this case is the prosecution’s adopting the theory that Goldblum physically assaulted Wilhelm in the face of overwhelming evidence that Miller was the assailant.
• The most obvious and most significant evidence in this case was the dying declaration made by the murder victim to a police officer. When Officer Thomas Pobicki reached Wilhelm on the roof of the pedestrian walkway, Wilhelm stated: “Clarence, Clarence Miller did this to me.” (T.T. 1360, 1520).
• When police came to Miller’s home fourteen hours after homicide, they noticed fresh scratches on his forearms and wrists. (T.T. 1366-67) These scratches were never photographed or analyzed by police. No scratches or other signs of struggle were found on Goldblum.
• Black vinyl gloves were recovered just outside the parking garage the morning after the murder. (T.T. 1625) These gloves were stained with blood that matched the type and group of Wilhelm. (T.T. 1794) The hairs in the gloves were “compatible with Miller’s arm hair and not compatible with Goldblum’s or Wilhelm’s hair.” (T.T. 1795-96) No forensic evidence was offered to link these gloves to Goldblum.
• Miller told police there was blood on his pants and he had washed his pants. (T.T. 1372-73) He also stated he threw away the coat he wore the night of the murder. (T.T. 705, 807) A next door neighbor of Miller’s, William Held, testified he saw Miller return home the night of the murder with dark brown spots on his clothes that looked like dried blood. (T.T. 2750) In contrast, when police seized the clothing and shoes Miller described Goldblum was wearing, there was no blood save possibly a very tiny spot on the right cuff of a shirt that could not be positively determined to be blood from the victim. (T.T. 1799-1800) The importance of the lack of blood on Goldblum’s clothing and shoes should not be understated. The prosecution’s forensic pathologist, Dr. Joshua Perper, testified that Wilhelm’s wounds would have sprayed blood upon his attacker. (T.T. 1569-1570) In general, the crime scene was very bloody. (T.T. 1497-1498, 1506).
A critical piece of evidence the trial jury never heard, either because it was lost or destroyed, or due to ineffectiveness of defense counsel, is the blood spatter on the interior of Wilhelm’s car. There has never been a dispute as to the position of each man when the attack began: Wilhelm was behind the wheel of his car, Miller was seated in the front passenger seat and Goldblum was seated in the rear seat.
Police Detective Freeman testified that he observed a line of blood spatter on the dashboard of the car, from the driver’s side to the glove box on the passenger side. (T.T. 1248, 1251, 1510, 1883) The trail of blood spatter had tails on them which pointed toward the passenger side, indicating that the blood was cast onto the dashboard in a left to right movement. (T.T. 1247- 1248) This evidence shows that Wilhelm was stabbed by the person sitting to his right- Clarence Miller. See the Affidavits of Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. Barbara Wolf, and Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. McDonnell.
Despite the obvious evidence that the attack on Wilhelm began inside his car, the blood spatter was never photographed, nor was it submitted to the crime lab for analysis. (T.T. 1236, 1254, 1811, 1902) This was not consistent with clearly established police forensic procedures. See Affidavit of John Balshy pages _________, and deposition of retired Police Detective Salvatore Crisanti, pages _________ .
Most importantly, none of the detectives seemed to have given any thought to the blood spatter despite the clear conflict between Miller and Goldblum as to who did the stabbing. No explanation was given for this significant oversight.
And again, it must be noted that with the police files missing, it cannot be completely determined what the police did or did not do in the course of their investigation, or why they took the course they pursued. The police reports that are available barely mention the blood spatter and contain no discussion of it.
The police and prosecutors are the only parties with anything to be gained by virtue of the fact that all the records turned up missing. If the records were intentionally destroyed, the police and prosecutors are the only parties that have a motive. They also were in complete control of the records.
Goldblum’s trial counsel did not seek the advice or elicit the testimony of a forensic specialist to determine the significance of the blood spatter. Nor did trial counsel undertake such an inquiry of the detectives or crime lab personnel who testified for the prosecution.
All of this physical and circumstantial evidence lends powerful support to the most important and most trustworthy evidence in this case-the dying declaration of George Wilhelm: “Clarence, Clarence Miller did this to me.” (T.T. 1520).
Is it any wonder then that world renowned forensic experts such as Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. Michael Baden, and Henry Lee have concluded that it was Clarence Miller – not Charles Goldblum – who committed this gruesome killing?
Is it any wonder that the trial judge, the Honorable Donald Ziegler, has expressed his grave misgivings about the trial verdict and wrote to Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey: “I presided over the case of Commonwealth v. Goldblum in 1975. I am concerned that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and only you can right the wrong.” Letter from Donald Ziegler to Robert Casey dated January 14, 1994.
Is it any wonder, that F. Peter Dixon, the trial prosecutor, has now come forward. Mr. Dixon stated in his affidavit:
I have come to the very firm conclusion that Charles Goldblum had nothing to do with the murder of George Wilhelm other than being a frightened witness to that murder and an accessory after the fact… I have also concluded that it is very unlikely that Charles Goldblum participated in the land fraud perpetrated against George Wilhelm or that George Wilhelm participated in the arson of Mr. Goldblum’s restaurant.
See Affidavit of F. Peter Dixon, dated June 17, 1998.
Read about Zeke’s Statement from 1996…