ROCKLAND, Maine — A confession made by a 36-year-old Rockland man accused in the strangulation death of a Friendship woman in 2010 cannot be used at his upcoming trial.
Justice Jeffrey Hjelm issued a 25-page order Thursday on the motions made on behalf of Arnold A. Diana by his defense attorney. Diana is charged with intentional or knowing murder in connection with the Nov. 20, 2010, death of Katrina Windred.
Hjelm ruled that statements made by Diana to Maine State Police toward the end of an interview conducted on Nov. 27 are suppressed because Diana had asked for the questioning to end. Diana confessed to his role in the murder toward the end of the Nov. 27 interview.
The judge also ruled that two separate searches of Diana’s apartment at the Thorndike apartment building on Main Street in Rockland were proper and any evidence seized, including a bloody pillow sheet, can be used at trial.
The trial is scheduled to start July 13 with jury selection. Diana remains held without bail at the Knox County Jail in Rockland.
“The court found that the Maine State Police violated Mr. Diana’s constitutional rights when they continued interrogating him after Mr. Diana invoked his right to remain silent,” according to a statement issued Thursday from defense attorney Christopher MacLean’s Camden office.
Assistant Attorney General Lisa Marchese said the ruling would not have a significant impact on the state’s case. Marchese, who is prosecuting the case, said there are other statements made by Diana and physical evidence that can be used.
The Nov. 27, 2010, interview began after Diana had arrived back in Rockland after visiting Vinalhaven. He was met at the Maine State Ferry Terminal in Rockland by state police who intended to arrest him for murder.
Windred’s body had been found Nov. 23, 2010, along the side of the Thompson Meadow Road in a rural part of Rockland. The woman had left her home in Friendship three days earlier to drop off groceries for Diana.
Maine State Police Detectives Michael Mitchell and Dean Jackson took Diana to the Rockland police station on Nov. 27 and began questioning him at 4:15 p.m. Shortly before 6 p.m., after “an extended, sometimes repetitive and often intense discussion of the investigators’ accusations, the defendant said, ‘I’m sorry, but I can’t do no more,’” Justice Hjelm’s order states.
When the detectives continued to ask the defendant about his involvement, Diana said again, “I’m calling this over. I can’t,” Hjelm points out.
The detectives continued to question Diana and then allowed him to step outside for nearly 30 minutes to smoke a cigarette. While outside, Jackson continued to question the suspect, who eventually made statements about Windred’s condition and then made “inculpatory” statements.
Documents filed in September in Knox County Superior Court detailed what statements Diana made toward the end of that Nov. 27 interview.
Among the statements being suppressed, Diana claimed that Windred, 47, had come to his home a few days before Thanksgiving 2010 to drop off some groceries and that she got mad at him and pushed him.
“She pushed me [at] my apartment by the front door. And there I just lost it. I guess I grabbed her,” Diana told police, according to transcripts of the interview.
Diana told police that when he grabbed her, both fell to the floor. He said that he was on top of her for a few moments and she scratched at his head. When he stood up, Windred was still alive but apparently not conscious, he said.
Not knowing what to do, he put her face-down on his bed and covered her with a blanket. Her face was on top of a pillow that police later found hidden under Diana’s mattress. The pillow was soaked with “a significant volume of blood,” police reported.
“She was still breathing a little bit when I put her on the bed. I was hoping she’d snap out of it. When I realized she wasn’t breathing, I got scared,” Diana told police. “I was like, ‘What am I gonna do? What am I gonna do? What am I gonna do?”
He decided to get Windred’s 11-year-old son out of her car, which was parked outside the apartment, and bring him upstairs. He told the boy that Windred was sleeping. The boy knew something was wrong because Windred had a medical condition that didn’t allow her to lie flat on a bed. She always slept sitting up in bed, he told police. Always.
As the boy’s bedtime came, Diana said he put the boy on the bed next to his mother, where he fell asleep.
Around midnight, Diana decided he had to get Windred’s body out of the house. He wrapped her in a blanket, tied it with bits of towel and dragged her down several flights of stairs. His bloody hands left prints on the walls and in the stairwell. He dragged the 110-pound body to his new girlfriend’s pickup truck and put it in the passenger’s seat. Then he went back to his apartment and sat in his chair, exhausted and sweaty.
After catching his breath, he headed back to the truck while Windred’s son slept.
“I just got in [my girlfriend’s] truck and just drove. I went down Limerock Street and then I saw a dirt road and said ‘all right,’” Diana said. “I noticed a bend and parked there and pulled her out and dragged her over there and put her there. I got back in [the] truck and drove back.”
For the next couple of hours he sat in his apartment thinking. Around 3 a.m. Windred’s son woke up asking where his mom went. Arnold told him she had gone out with friends.
“I didn’t know what else to say,” he told police.
Diana brought the boy the following morning to the boy’s father and told people that Windred had gone off to meet some friends.
The day he confessed, Nov. 27, 2010, was the first time Diana had ever told anyone what happened the night of Nov. 20.
“That’s everything,” he told police at the end of his three-hour interview. He was arrested and charged with murder later that night.
Justice Hjelm also ruled that a portion of a state police interview conducted on Nov. 22 cannot be used because it had become more of a custodial situation and Diana should have had his Miranda warnings read to him.
Police had read Diana his Miranda rights at the start of the Nov. 27 interview.
BDN writer Heather Steeves contributed to this report.
Sure. Toss out the confession of an obviously guilty murderer. That way, the trial can be dragged out much longer and we can spend a few more thousand dollars (that we don’t have).
He may have ‘asked’ for questioning to end, but even so, he continued to offer up information when asked. He opted to not to exercise his right to remain silent. What a crock.
And if you let this go you can take it to its natural conclusion…local police will be waterboarding suspects in the back room. Thank goodness the constitution protects ALL citizens!
Most “citizens” are not murders….
Doesn’t matter what “most” citizens are or aren’t The Constitution protects everyone. In their wisdom the founders set up a system where it is better to let a guilty person go free than to find an innocent person guilty. Bad people have rights, all speech (even speech people don’t like) is protected, and sometimes bad people get to walk off without punishment. Sometimes we need bad people, hate speech, and all the other bad things in society to remind us that justice and revenge are two separate things.
OK. To paraphrase a line from an old movie: First we’ll give ’em a little due process. And then we’ll hang ’em.
Not true, not all speech is protected. You do not have the right to threaten people, you can’t yell “hijack” on an airplane, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. In fact, there’s significant difference between freedom of speech and court protected freedom of speech.
Most of these “citizens” missed civics class’s in school. They do not grasp the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law,let alone Constitutional protections for all American citizens. You cant fix stupid.
But most murderers are citizens…
I’d agree if he invoked his right to an attorney but you invoke your right to remain silent by REMAINING SILENT.
They didn’t waterboard anyone, he simply answered the questions and confessed. Don’t make this into something that it’s not.
If it’s so obvious he did it, that will come out in the trial.
Once a suspect says he wants a lawyer or doesn’t want to say any more, the police have to stop. Otherwise, they’re just badgering him. At that point, a suspect may feel the only way to stop the badgering is to give the police what they want — regardless of whether what they say is true.
Blame the police for ignoring the suspect’s constitutional rights — constitutional rights that apply to us all, regardless of whether anybody thinks we’re “obviously” guilty.
So our rights depend on how much money is available and whether or not it is obvious we did something or not? Lord I hope you never end up on a jury.
Well of course its “obvious”, you read it in the paper!!
Damn that pesky Constitution, why can’t we just execute people that are obviously guilty of something or at least authorize the police to do it for us. Hell, it worked in the Wild West and the segregated South didn’t it? No innocent people were ever harmed were they?
In order to make our “civilized” society to portray the picture that we paint it…..there has to be guidelines. If he said that he wanted to stop talking….they should have stopped. Case closed, done deal, he’s not talking any longer. They didn’t do that, but, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have other evidence to convict him…..it simply means that his confession is not welcomed before the jury, that’s it. And in a way it’s better, because the defense attorney would have attacked, but now he or she cannot.
I hate to say it I think the judge is right. if h did it i hope they get him.
To Regina I kind of agree with you. The law is the law if we bend it in one case where do we draw the line. Many people confess to things that they do not do. Just remember anything you say will be used against you sometimes taken out of contexed or miss understood. I remember being questioned before . I said” if I did do it”. Who is to say the police would not leave out the If I did. No where is anything you said used in your favor. Anything you say can and WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.
Good points. It’s a good rule of thumb to assume that anything you say to the police can be used against you. If you’ve committed a crime and want to minimize the chance of conviction, don’t make any statements, don’t be cajoled or fooled into it, and don’t fall for police ruses; they are permitted to lie to you (but you can’t lie to them). If you think you can outsmart an experienced police interrogator, you’re wrong. They’ll win every time.
There’s another rule of thumb, one that has no exceptions. If you’ve committed a crime and decide to talk to the police, tell the truth. Whatever you do, don’t lie.
glad he’s still locked up…
Even without that confession, they have his bloody handprints, the boy’s testimony that no one else was there and how his mother was. Unfortunately, that may be what they have to use to get the guy. Poor kid is going to have to relive this. I can’t imagine what this must be doing to him. More than one life messed up here.
Law enforcement deals with interrogations every day. They are trained for it and it is pretty routine. To botch it up like this is so amateur that it is almost intolerable.
Save the outrage for the Keystone Kops in this case.
Really OldBone……Do a little more research before you start criticizing these officers. They read the gentleman his rights two times in that process. Once at the beginning and once after a few hours and he had a cigarette break. You know not of what you speak about. Most recent case law from the Supreme Court supports continued questioning by law enforcement unless the the suspect invokes in a unambiguous manner. Statements like “Im sorry I cant do no more” doesnt necessarily indicate that the suspect is completely done talking. The police have a duty in this case to continue at least until the person says they dont want to talk anymore. At the point the suspect said something like that the police should stop questioning. The thing that most people dont realize is that statements made after that invocation of their right to stop talking is that those statements can be used later in the proceedings, even if the judge says that they violated his rights. How, you ask. Well, if the suspect later decides to testify and gets on the stand and lies about what he said, the prosecution can use the statements that were earlier supressed….against the suspect. It is called impeaching the person’s credibility. In other words, if they lie about WHAT they said, the recordings can be played for a jury to show that the person is a liar. So there is far more involved then you calling them Keystone Cops……that would make you a member of the Peanut Gallery. Mike Mitchell of the State Police is a skilled interrogator and excellent law enforcement officer. I suspect the same of Dean Jackson. I do not know him. They knew exactly what they were doing. Check Judge Yjelm’s record. He is a bright guy and a former prosecutor. He threw the defense a “bone” in this case. There appears to be alot of evidence that will make the lack of confession moot in this matter. With a different judge on the bench, the ruling could have been much different. Officers dont know which judge will hear a case, they do their best with what they have and try to work within the confines of the system. This is a liberal state and Yjelm is a liberal judge.
If the Maine Supreme Court were asked to review this case I think that Yjelm’s ruling would be overturned. However, if the man is convicted, The State’s Attorney General’s Office would not appeal because it would be all for not.
My guess is that you think Mark Fuhrman did a pretty good job too. Try to think ahead a little. If the judge in this case let the confession stand, there’s a good chance that a guilty verdict would be overturned on appeal in your “liberal state”.
Ahhhh, the old Mark Fuhrman play. Fuhrman used a horrible term for African Americans and then lied on the stand about it. The connection between what I wrote about and Mark Fuhrman are really completely different matters. While Fuhrman’s conduct was deplorable, he was charged with a crime and was the only person convicted in the OJ Simpson debacle. He was convicted for the crime of perjury. Its great that you made that connection, I just fail to see it. Since you made that connection, let me give it a try. You wrote about the Keystone Cops and compared them State Police Officers doing a custodial interview with a murder suspect. Following your lead, I say that you find it more deplorable that Mark Fuhrman lied about an unrelated matter than you did with the fact that someone slashed Nicole Brown Simpson’s throat wearing OJ Simpson’s shoes and knife that he recently purchased. Taking it one step further, you find the work done by the State Police in this case horrifying and yet you think it’s swell that a murderer placed the dead woman’s son in bed with her body, later removing it to discard it like garbage. When the child woke up to find mother (her body) gone, he became upset and wondered where Mommy went. I say you sir (or Ma’am), are a Child Abuser. See, cute, but not based in fact. Like all of your comments so far.
You watch too much Perry Mason.
No, actually I dont. I just pointed out the difference between reality and the fact that it is so easy to respond to a newspaper article that doesnt explain the entire story. I can appreciate that someone can easily snipe from the comfort of their compound. But, unlike you, my comments were based on the totality of the circumstances and facts. I can appreciate your humorous response though. It should be noted that the original Perry Mason was only on the air until May of 1966. The ruling on Miranda and the opinion from the courts came down in June of 1966. Probably you intended your attempt at levity to be directed at me based on the second run of Perry Mason in the 70’s. If so, it’s funny. Thanks for not being burdoned with the facts. I stand by my comment and hope that your day filled with sunshine and copious amounts of reality television.
Excellent points. Obviously, you know what you’re talking about. OldBone and Craftsman1962 don’t have a clue. As you say, the suppressed statements can be used against the defendant on cross examination to impeach his credibility if he decides to testify. For instance, if he takes the stand and says he didn’t do it, the statements will come in as prior inconsistent statements and statements against his interest. The reason is that the exclusionary rule only goes so far. As the courts say, it can be used as a shield but not as a sword. Unless the defendant is very stupid and pig headed, he won’t testify.
Why do we waste our time….bring back the death penalty and lets not waste taxpayers dollars
We would be spending more $ pursuing a capital punishment than not, but of course you are probably in favor of dispensing with all appeals process as well. Such a bother these appeals…
OK. The confession is out. But every possible member of the jury can read it for themselves in the BDN.
I’m certainly glad they printed all those ‘supressed’ statements!
…
….
It appears some of you are confusing Miranda Rights with the Constitution? In this case the police allegedly violated Miranda Rights, not his constitutional rights. And while the judge threw out his statements, it’s likely because some liberal court decision that says once someone asks for a lawyer anything they say after can’t be used. He violated his own right to remain silent.
Your name, Bright, is ironic since Miranda is the name of a case that talked about the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. So yes, these are Constitutional rights and the liberal court that made the ruling is responsible for interpreting many parts of the Constitution that keep the police from kicking down your door and brow beating you in the town square. So if that is the defintion of liberal I won’t complain.
You’re reading far deeper into my intent than I meant for. The point is that specifically regarding the stoppage of questioning or invoking the right to remain silent, not to extrapolate this to mean he was “compelled to self incrimination”. Talk about taking it a step beyond: kicking in your door and brow beating you in the town square? Conspiracy nuts much?
Please do not blame police for years of abuse by this man. This is not the first time he took law into his own hands. Remember he had a protection of abuse order on him when he was arrested. That was against him with another woman. He is a very disturbed man. I hope he can get help but he will never contribute anything to our society. Please think how hard it is on this womans son. She was only kind to this man. all lives are gone. It will cost us millons as tax payers.
Somebody needs to throw this judge out of court. He is a complete a-hole!
Seeing that our judicial system and laws protect the criminals and their rights more than they do the victims, why don’t we just release all criminals back into society! I read every day about violent habitual criminals being arrested that have committed the same or more violent crimes as much as a dozen times!
Good call Jeff, we certainly do not want to know the truth – just toss it out the door.
He is a sick man, he will be convicted…..
Too bad no death penalty……
the look on this guy’s face will convict him. his eyes are to close together i am suprised he did not molest the kid
It might be nice if BDN made available the justice’s order so people could examine his reasoning and be aided in forming their opinions, pro and con.