Rachelle Waterman is the infamous blogger in Craig, Alaska who prosecutors say had two former lovers carry out the killing of Waterman’s mother.
Jason Arrant and Brian Radel pleaded guilty to murder and testified against Waterman. Arrant claimed that Waterman asked him to kill her mother. He had Radel kidnap Lauri Waterman from her home one night when she was alone. The two men suffocated her in a botched attempt to make her death look like a drunken-driving accident.
The charred body of her mother, Lauri Waterman, was found in the family’s minivan off a remote logging road in November 2004.
Waterman, 16 at the time, was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, murder in the first and second degree, kidnapping, burglary, vehicle theft and tampering with evidence.
Waterman kept a blog, called “My Crappy Life” that detailed her conflicts with her mother and growing up in the small town of 1,100 which she referred to as “Hell, Alaska.”
Back in the spring of 2006 when I used to live in Juneau, I covered the case for AlaskaReport.
I emailed Waterman’s defense attorney Steven M. Wells a few days ago because I was curious to know what the status of the case was. This is what he sent back:
The case is still under appeal. The State argues that Judge Collins was wrong to have suppressed the statement and dismissed the indictment. They appealed, arguing that they have a right to appeal.
Ms. Waterman argues, though, that they do not have the right to an interlocutory appeal as a matter of right. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal that occurs before a final judgment. She has moved to prevent the State from appealing at this point.
The State is somewhat stuck because their public position is that there is enough evidence to try Ms. Waterman without her statement. I believe otherwise. If the Court of Appeals grants the motion, it would force the State to proceed without her statement. At that point, the State may seek to try Ms. Waterman again or it may decide against doing so. In that event, the State would have to obtain a new indictment.
If the Court of Appeals denies the motion, it means that the appeal would be accepted and the Court of Appeals would review the matter to determine if Judge Collins was correct in suppressing Ms. Waterman’s statement. If they determine that Judge Collins was correct, the State would again have to choose whether to seek another trial without Ms. Waterman’s statements. If the court determines that Judge Collins erred in suppressed the statement, the indictment would be re-instated and the State could proceed to trial on the indictment already returned.
