Murder in Massachusetts

Epilogue

For this Crime Library story, I used a number of primary sources: interviews with people involved; police reports; the FBI's Bureau of Justice & Crime Statistics; Weather Underground; various resources at the Lanesborough Public Library; selected excerpts of trial testimony; statements to police by Christopher Robinson, Amanda Robinson, Patricia Olsen and others, in addition to interviews police conducted with Amanda, Christopher, Patricia and others; court documents in the public file; Neil Olsen's obituary; my own reporting while in town; videotape excerpts of the trial; and motions filed by the defense and prosecution.

Obviously, there is a lot more to this case than I could cover in this Crime Library story. That being said, I chose what were, to me, the most important aspects of it. I presented the evidence I thought provides us with a comprehensive understanding of the events from prosecution and defense points of view. Both sides had the opportunity to speak to me. They chose not to.

One document of interest is a motion written and filed by Lori Levinson and Leonard Cohen, Patricia Olsen's trial attorneys. The motion details how "Chief Investigating Officer, Trooper [Jean] Thibodeau, had to review all witness statements gathered by investigating officers" and "through her review of all witness statements, [she] learned that of twenty-two [witnesses] ... who knew Christopher Robinson, twenty stated that he was either a pathological liar, a liar, or basically someone who could not be believed." Some claimed Christopher " [lied] all the time about bizarre stuff" and "... lies about everything." According to the motion, Cohen and Levinson asked the Court—"based on the foregoing statements of which Trooper Thibodeau is aware" (those twenty people saying Christopher is a habitual liar)—for permission to pose "the following foundation questions of Trooper Thibodeau: 1. Are you familiar with ... [Christopher Robinson's] general reputation for truth and veracity in the community in which he is known? 2. What is that reputation?"

Stamped on the front of the motion is its file date: May 8, 2006. Next to that, handwritten, the motion was "denied" by the Court on the same day.

I struggled with this case from the day I started reporting on it in January 2005. Patricia Olsen is one of the unlikeliest female murderers I have researched. What I know about her life just doesn't fit the profile. That said, there is a lot of evidence to prove she masterminded Neil Olsen's demise, some of which I feel is undeniable. Yet there is also limited evidence to suggest reasonable doubt exists. Even more compelling to me, as I take Christopher Robinson out of the equation, is that the jury evidently believed Amanda Robinson, who, I've been told by someone close to Patricia, now visits her mother in Framingham and, that same source insisted, feels "guilty about lying on the witness stand—that's why she goes to see her mom in prison."

"Why doesn't Amanda reach out to the court, then?" I suggested. "Why not go to a lawyer and explain that she committed perjury—if she is, in fact, claiming this now?"

"She's scared," was I all got for an answer.

Neither Amanda nor Christopher would speak to me. Patricia's case is under appeal; however, she hasn't filed a motion for a new trial yet. She is, I'm told, searching for new attorneys.

Christopher lied all the time; there is clear evidence of that. So when he was telling the truth, the boy who cried wolf theory fell applied. Amanda, however, was never known to be a "pathological" liar. But as cops questioned her, she seemed to forget things and then remember and then forget again. What's odd is, some time went by before Amanda's and Christopher's stories began to gel perfectly. I don't know what this means—if anything—but it's obvious to me that if they were questioned again today their stories would be different.

Patricia Olsen wanted desperately to speak to me for this article. But she is steadfast in her determination to pursue her appeal and get out of prison. I respect her decision not to jeopardize her appeal by speaking to me. We corresponded through mail briefly. Many of the people I spoke to while in Lanesborough expressed difficulty in accepting Patricia's guilty verdict. Some believe she is an innocent woman falsely convicted on the testimony of liars.

Who knows. I am left with the facts of the case as they were presented in court, which is the story I told. I have a hard time with those two telephone calls (near midnight on January 9, 2005) Patricia supposedly retrieved from her cell phone voicemail. Why didn't she wait until morning, if the calls were merely restaurant related (as I have been told)? Why would Patricia retrieve those messages? She claimed to sound asleep. And if she was up, and by some chance just forgot, why wouldn't she, realizing Neil wasn't in bed yet, go out and look for him then?

The only one besides Patricia who can answer the question of her guilt is Christopher—and we cannot really count on anything he says. In any event, I don't like to question a jury's verdict. But I can say this "he said-she said" tale of murder was an interesting case to study. It really challenged me in many ways. I encourage anyone with comments about this case to send me your thoughts.

I can be reached at my crime blog www.crimerant.com