Thompson

The conviction of an Altoona man for the stabbing deaths of an elderly Spruce Avenue couple almost 22 years ago has been upheld by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in a decision handed down earlier this week.

William Darwin Thompson, now 42, was sentenced to consecutive life terms in 2007 by Blair County Judge Hiram A. Carpenter III for the murders of Raymond Bracken, 83, and his wife Marjorie, 81, after being convicted on two counts of second degree murder, robbery, aggravated assault, theft and receiving property.

The prosecution charged that Thompson pushed his way into the Bracken home in March 2002 with the intent of robbing the couple and it ended tragically.

The Brackens’ bodies were found by a neighbor who noticed their newspaper was on the front porch for a couple of days and became suspicious because Mr. Bracken was known to read the paper the first thing every morning.

The bodies of the couple were found inside the home. Both Raymond and Marjorie had been stabbed to death.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court stated Thompson received his life sentences “for his involvement in the robbery and brutal murder of Raymond and Marjorie Bracken.”

But one of the lingering questions surrounding the controversial case was whether Thompson was with others who entered the home to rob the Brackens.

Blair County District Attorney Richard A. Consiglio, the lead prosecutor in the case, said after the verdicts were returned, “This guy did it. …He is the killer.”

But Police were never able to connect others to the crime although Thompson in a statement indicated he was not the sole participant and maintained he did not kill the couple.

The Thompson trial was delayed by procedural errors and it wasn’t until 2007 that a Beaver County jury was brought to Blair County to hear the case.

Thompson was convicted and on June 26, 2007, he was sentenced to life by Carpenter.

His initial appeal was denied by the Superior Court on Dec. 17, 2010.

The state Supreme Court nine months later refused further review.

In October 2011, Thompson, representing himself, filed another post conviction appeal.

Blair County attorney Matthew R. Dombrosky eventually was appointed to represent Thompson and the ensuing appeal raised multiple issues questioning the handling of Thompson’s case by his trial attorneys.

Carpenter, in a lengthy opinion published in 2022, upheld Thompson’s conviction and life sentence.

When Carpenter retired, the Thompson case was transferred to Blair County President Judge Elizabeth A. Doyle.

She then adopted Carpenter’s opinion and the defense appealed to the Superior Court.

It wasn’t until this week that the appeals court also adopted Carpenter’s opinion “as our own.”

The panel making that decision included Judges Jack A. Panella, Judith F. Olson and Correale F. Stevens.

Thompson, who is incarcerated in the State Correctional Houtzdale, can still seek further review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Thompson in his Superior Court appeal raised 11 issues for review.

One of those issues was that defense counsel Steven P. Passarello, who is deceased, and his co-counsel Thomas Hooper, didn’t properly challenge the scientific evidence used in Thompson’s case.

In his 65-page opinion, Carpenter disagreed with that defense argument.

“The scientific evidence — especially the lack of the same — was the focal point of the defense,” Carpenter stated.

He cited the opening statement by the defense in which Passarello stated the Thompson case was “probably one of the strangest cases I’ve ever been involved in.”

The defense counsel explained that usually it’s the defense that is “running away” from the crime scene.

In the Thompson case, the defense pointed out, it is the prosecution that was ignoring the crime scene.

“The crime scene is totally devoid of any evidence linking this defendant forensically to the murders. There’s no substantial evidence, DNA or otherwise, linking this defendant to the murders,” Passarello contended.

He emphasized there was no DNA placing Thompson at the scene. There was no blood, no hair samples, no clothing fibers, and no fingerprints that showed Thompson was even present when the Brackens were murdered.

There was a “bloody footprint” of a Timberland-style boot, but that print did not match any of Thompson’s shoes or those shoes worn by the first responders to the scene.

Even a key prosecution witness in the case — an estranged girlfriend — indicated Thompson was wearing blue Nike sneakers on the night of the murder.

Also, a latent bloody fingerprint in the Brackens’ kitchen was not a match to Thompson, the defense stated.

“That’s what the crime scene tells you,” Passarello stated to the jury.

Another point the defense argued was that Thompson’s trial attorneys should have challenged the admission of DNA evidence collected at the scene, but the Carpenter opinion noted the defense, permitting the introduction of the DNA evidence gathered at the scene, was a “sound strategy,” in view of the fact the evidence did not link Thompson to the crime scene.

Carpenter, in his opinion, found that objection to be “meritless.”

The defense also complained Thompson’s trial attorneys did not thoroughly cross-examine the estranged girlfriend to show she had a history of telling lies to the police.

Carpenter disagreed, noting the defense attorneys were so thorough in the cross-examination that “no one hearing her testimony could conclude that (she) had repeatedly been an unabashed liar on numerous occasions leading up to trial.”

The defense also argued the prosecution illegally coerced witnesses who testified against Thompson, but Carpenter ruled there was no evidence of any coercion in the record of the case.

The defense also challenged the autopsy report, but the judge rebuked that argument, stating there was no merit to the criticism and noting the photographs of the scene clearly showed how the victims died — by stabbing.

The Superior Court in its opinion ended its opinion in the Thompson case by stating, “Based upon review of the certified record, the parties appellate briefs, (Judge Carpenter’s opinion), and applicable law, we find the (Blair County court) thoroughly and accurately addressed the merits of Appellant’s issues in its opinion.”

Although evidence at the crime scene did not implicate Thompson, police were able to show that Thompson knew the Brackens and had done work for them.

Also testimony from the former girlfriend indicated Thompson returned to her home the night of the murder with a telephone from the Bracken home and a gold ring with a green stone that was identified as belonging to Mr. Bracken.