Friday, July 11, 2008
â110 percent certainâ
Arlo Olson: âHalf shotâ yet positive in his testimony about what he saw
CONTENT WARNING
This series contains references to vulgar language and violent acts that may be objectionable to some readers and that parents may find inappropriate for their children.
Editorâs note: This series is the product of a six-year investigation by former Daily News-Miner reporter Brian OâDonoghue and his journalism students at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, with support from the News-Miner.

Between 1995 and 2000, Arlo Olson was convicted seven times for assaulting his girlfriend and twice for assaulting people who tried to protect her. In 2000, he served time for hitting and choking his mother. Olson, who provided key testimony for the state, said in 2003 in a jailhouse interview that he was not sure what he saw down the street from Eagles Hall.
Heâd been drinking for hours by the time he eyed four men fleeing a robbery.
Those standing alongside later swore they didnât notice the crime unfolding more than a block away. A perception expert argued that no one can recognize faces at such distance.
Yet jurors believed the man from Kaltag. Arlo Olson sounded that good on the witness stand.
Then-prosecutor Jeff OâBryant underscored Olsonâs significance in the final trial of John Hartmanâs four accused slayers.
âSimply put,â he told jurors weighing murder charges against Kevin Pease and Marvin Roberts, âif Arlo didnât see what he saw, and you throw out some of the stateâs evidence, the state doesnât have a case. No doubt about it.â
Others, including a nationally recognized authority on criminal identification, remain troubled by the weight attached to identifications made under remarkably unfavorable conditions. âThe idea an identification of this sort could still result in a conviction is rather astonishing,â said Gary L. Wells, an Iowa State psychology professor and former chair of several federal panels on eyewitness evidence
Yet jurors not only found the hard-drinking 20-year-old credible, in doing so they discounted a sober, expectant motherâs time-referenced alibi for Roberts, the driver of the car that Olson identified as fleeing that distant robbery.
Though he, too, shared the Athabascan heritage, Olsonâs starring role in all three Hartman trials fed doubts â and, for many Interior Natives, perceptions of racism â that a decade of legal wrangling hasnât overcome.
Linked robbery with murder
Fifteen-year-old Hartman lingered in a coma until his death Sunday evening, Oct. 12, 1997. By then, police had four suspects, ages 17 to 21, including two â George Frese and Eugene Vent â who confessed.
Earlier that day, Detective Aaron Ring stopped Olson on the street, mistaking him for someone else. Hearing that he, like the suspects, had attended Fridayâs big wedding reception, the detective urged Olson to come by the station to give a statement.
But Olson was reluctant; he had assault charges pending from two alcohol-fueled brawls back
in his village. When police later sought him at his grandfatherâs apartment, he hid.

Five days after the discovery of Hartman sprawled unconscious on a downtown street, Olson bowed to his grandfatherâs requests and visited the police station. He volunteered that he had seen the murder suspects jump another guy minutes earlier. He said he recognized the group from the mug shots published in the newspaper.
Police had already characterized the robbery of Franklin Dayton as the start of a violent spree culminating in Hartmanâs murder. Now they had a witness tying the murder suspects to that earlier assault.
Adding to Olsonâs significance, the witness also said he had run into Frese outside a nearby bar about the time Hartman was rushed to the hospital. Frese was limping and acting âjittery,â Olson told police. He said the suspect also bragged that he had âkicked a guyâs ass.â
Three years after delivering guilty verdicts against Roberts and Pease in the third and final Hartman trial, a pair of jurors discussed Olsonâs impact with University of Alaska Fairbanks journalism students.
âThe key thing was the eye-witness,â juror Gary Montini said in 2002. âI forget the guyâs name, young guy that was out on the steps of the hall, he identified them while they were beating the crap out of some guy.â
He called Olson âcourageousâ for speaking out against fellow Alaska Natives.
Jamie Smykalski found Olson particularly credible compared to the suspectsâ witnesses. âEvery single person that came up to speak for the defense reeked of disbelief,â the juror said. âThis Arlo guy is either the worldâs best liar, in my opinion, or he saw what he saw. He was very convincing.â

Arlo Olson was standing in front of Eagles Hall (top) with a group of people when he says he saw Franklin Dayton being robbed down the street. Dayton told police he was mugged just past the Poldine Carlo building (bottom). The distance between the two locations is 550 feet. Four days later, Olson identified the men he says he saw robbing Dayton as George Frese, Kevin Pease, Marvin Roberts and Eugene Vent â after he saw their mugshots in the newspaper. Police contend the group continued on in Marvin Robertsâ car and fatally assaulted John Hartman roughly a half-mile away.
Vague about vantage
Olson couldnât actually see the muggersâ faces from where he stood under the canopy fronting the Eagles Hall. That would have required binoculars, he said under cross-examination. But Olson said he had seen them all riding in the car earlier that night and was â110 percent certainâ he recognized Frese, Vent and the others committing the robbery based on their haircuts, profiles and posture. âThatâs like you see Michael Jordan a half a mile away,â Olson testified, âyouâre going to recognize thatâs Michael Jordan.â
The witness remained vague about the distance separating him from the mugging. He gave grand jurors the impression Daytonâs assault took place in a nearby parking lot. Testifying at the first Hartman trial, 16 months later, Olson said: âI donât know, maybe a 100 yards, 150 yards,â and characterized it as a âfootball field.â
It didnât come out until the third trial, 22 months after the crime, that Fairbanks police had gone back to measure how far Olson stood from the sidewalk section pointed out by the mugging victim. Using a roller device, then-Sgt. James Geier measured the distance at 183 yards, or 550 feet.
Geier, who prepared step-by-step reports on other aspects of his role in the Hartman investigation, left this field survey out of his case file. âThey asked me to go do something,â he explained under cross-examination. âI did it, and let them know what it was, what the results were.â
He couldnât recall who wanted the measurement or who he called with the result. âIt probably was somebody with the police department.â
Robertsâ defense attorney, Dick Madson, took aim at that omission. âYou didnât want us to know about it,â he said. âDid you?â
âThe place is still there, sir,â countered Geier. He added that Olsonâs account seemed plausible when he gazed back toward Eagles Hall from Daytonâs mugging location. âI thought well, yeah, I could see the place fine.â
How far is too far?
Geoffrey Loftus, a University of Washington psychology professor and visual perception expert, contends identifications at such great distance are not reliable. âYou simply wouldnât be able to distinguish anything about what that person looks like,â said the professor, who testified as a paid expert for Pease.
Even under the best lighting and with no time pressure, the professor assured jurors, an alert observerâs chance of recognizing someoneâs face farther than 200 feet away is âessentially nil.â
Olson wasnât talking about faces, however. He said he based his identifications on the haircuts, posture â the suspectsâ general appearance.
Thereâs a real difference, Loftus acknowledged last fall.
âIndeed when you see an entire body, thereâs more information than in a face,â he noted by e-mail. âBody shape and motion come into play.â
But the professor contends body recognition lacks the certainty attached to facial identification. âItâs pretty easy to tell one humanâs face from another; one personâs face is unique or almost unique in that respect.â Body builds and postures are more interchangeable, he pointed out. âDetermining someone is 6-foot-2 and 200 pounds doesnât really distinguish any one individual from many other individuals.â
Stung by the trial verdict, Loftus and a University of California at Los Angeles colleague later experimented with subjects attempting to distinguish facial types and celebrity photos at a distance of 200 feet. Their findings were published in a 2005 article in Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, a journal of experimental psychology.
The article features images of actress Julia Robertsâ face, altered to demonstrate the effects of distance, taking into account light frequency, contrast degradation and other visual considerations. At 172 feet, the movie starâs image blurs past recognition.
The decade since Hartmanâs murder has given justice officials and researchers new cause for scrutinizing eyewitness testimony, particularly in murder and rape trials. Misidentification by claimed witnesses is the leading common factor among DNA-driven exonerations, offered as evidence in 75 percent of convictions later overturned through science.

Geoffrey Loftus, a University of Washington psychology professor and visual perception expert, maintains that identifications at distances such as 550 feet are not reliable. âYou simply wouldnât be able to distinguish anything about what that person looks like,â said the professor, who testified as a paid expert for Kevin Pease.
All of those proven errant IDs, according to Wells, came from observers who stood closer, enjoyed better lighting and other circumstances more favorable than Olson possessed that night outside the Eagles Hall. âThose witnesses had not been drinking and so on,â the professor noted by e-mail after reviewing this story. âAnd yet they mistakenly identified innocent people rather than the perpetrators.â
Hunters know better
Out in the villages, no one needed light frequency calculations to assess the witnessâs credibility. âHow could he see 500 feet? During the evening, you know, in the dark?â demanded Gerry Roberts, the father of the alleged getaway car driver.
Hunters who have attempted to distinguish bull from cow moose in twilight, even using a rifle scope, will grasp the absurdity, he said in a 2004 interview.
âFive hundred feet is a long way to see moose, too, you know? Somebody you could recognize?â
Jurors from a village would have known better, he insisted.
Four years ago, ŸĂŸĂÈÈÊÓÆ” journalism students discovered that members of one Hartman jury wanted to see for themselves. The entire panel left the Anchorage courthouse during deliberations for a field test. Several jurors paced off what they took to be the distance at issue. Others eyed them, weighing Olsonâs claims.
Neither Judge Ben Esch nor any of the attorneys knew about the excursion that sunny afternoon. Disclosure of the unauthorized experiment held clear legal implications, a pair of former Alaska attorneys general said in interviews in February 2003.
âItâs totally improper,â said Charlie Cole, a Fairbanks attorney who served as the stateâs chief lawman under Gov. Walter Hickel. âI suspect itâs grounds for a new trial.â
Coleâs successor, Bruce Botelho, agreed. âYouâve got jurors that have, on their own, tried to reconstruct a situation that clearly could not approximate the setting.â

Top to Bottom: George Frese, Kevin Pease, Marvin Roberts, Eugene Vent
In August 2004, Judge Esch overturned Peaseâs conviction due to the juryâs experiment. Though the same facts apply, Robertsâ conviction stood; Alaska law only allows one opportunity at overturning a verdict through new evidence.
Last July, two of Alaskaâs three appellate judges concluded that jurors simply tested the vision expertâs general assertion that, even under optimum conditions, faces are unrecognizable 200 feet away. Since this was the purpose, Judge David Mannheimer wrote for the majority in its ruling, âthere is no reason to believe that the experiment yielded a false or misleading result.â
Chief Judge Robert Coats seconded that view. âJurors engaged in a sensible effort to resolve the credibility of Dr. Loftusâ testimony,â he wrote. âThey understood both the significance and the limitations of their experiment.â
The ruling blocked the new trial ordered for Pease.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge David Stewart pointed out jurors were weighing Olsonâs entire account, rather than solely examining the vision expertâs remarks. And their experiment fell well short of duplicating the witnessâ vantage on Daytonâs robbery, the judge noted. âThe jurors were looking at each other during the daytime at a distance more than 100 feet less than Olson faced,â he said, referencing accounts provided by the participants.
âBecause such an experiment is a constitutional violation,â he argued, âa conviction cannot stand unless the court can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the misconduct did not contribute to the verdict.â
Wells, who has been testing witness reliability since the 1970s, suggests the jurors made a âclassic errorâ in their street experiment.
âIf you expect to see a particular person at a distance, you can have the impression that you in fact can recognize them,â he explained by e-mail. âBut you know it was going to be them, you knew what they were wearing and so on. What if, unbeknownst to them, someone different had been substituted for their fellow juror?â
The significance of the juryâs experiment is now before the Alaska Supreme Court, along with Robertsâ constitutional arguments that he, too, deserves a new trial if Pease prevails.
Only âhalf shotâ
Walking to the reception that Friday, Olson joined several friends swigging from a fifth of Bacardi. His pregnant 17-year-old girlfriend wasnât drinking.
The couple reached Eagles Hall about midnight. She itched to dance. He wasnât ready. âI donât like to dance unless Iâm high,â Olson explained in court.
Guys kept buying Olsonâs younger sister mixed drinks. He downed âtwo or threeâ of these. He also sipped Mountain Dew spiked with the remaining rum.
By about 1 a.m., he recalled, âI wasnât drunk. My speech wasnât slurred and I wasnât staggering. I still didnât want to dance.â Or, as he put it during another court appearance, âI was high. Yeah. Was half shot.â
In this state, he headed outside for a cigarette, joining a crowd of about 30 gathered by the front canopy.
âLook, fight,â Olson recalled a friend shouting. Glancing up, he told police, he saw Dayton knocked to the ground and kicked. âGive us your money, bitch,â he recalled hearing someone yell. The victim handed up his wallet, the witness swore.
And he said he recognized Vent and Frese dashing toward a little blue car.
âHow long did that take?â asked Peaseâs attorney, Lori Bodwell. âWhen you saw them running to the car?
âProbably three.â
âA few seconds?â
âThree or four seconds, yeah.â
Police never found anyone else who acknowledged seeing the robbery.
The friend Olson said directed his attention to the fight, Kaltag basketball coach Robert Nicholas, recalled standing alongside Olson as people got in and out of cars. But he didnât remember watching or discussing a fight.
Local housing officer George Yaska, another person Olson said stood nearby, testified that he was inside dancing when word about Daytonâs mugging spread inside the hall. Yaska, who didnât recall bumping into Olson at all, declared that he would have rendered assistance. âI usually end up jumping in anyways,â he said. âYou have to.â
The victim, meanwhile, saw his own robbery differently.
Dayton, who like the others had had plenty to drink, didnât remember handing up his wallet, as Olson described. He recalled being belly down on the sidewalk and feeling his pocket picked. Looking up as the car sped away, he glimpsed a good-sized, white or tan vehicle. He sketched it for police as a four-door model.
Olson returned inside before Dayton made his way back to the hall. His girlfriend caught him dancing with another woman sometime before 3 a.m. and stomped out. He and another friend moved on to the Elbow Room. From there, the pair continued to the Alaskan Motor Inn, where Olson started a food fight that carried into the parking lot.
Afterward, the witness sipped 100-proof Wild Turkey at another friendâs apartment before landing on his grandfatherâs couch about 5 a.m.
âParty poopersâ tableâ
Critics familiar with the people involved have trouble understanding why jurors, aware of Olsonâs state of intoxication, apparently discounted the observations of a woman who avoided the alcohol flowing so freely that night.
That Friday, Tanana resident Mary Ann Wiehl had kids to watch. It was 11 p.m. before she escaped to the reception. She found a table with Gareth and Carry Edwin, a Nenana couple, and Eileen Newman, a 28-year-old Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. clerical employee then engaged to Gary Moore, a contributing student reporter on this series.
Being pregnant, all three women shunned alcohol. Welcome to the âparty poopersâ table,â they joked together.
Marvin Roberts, whom Wiehl babysat as a child, settled on the tableâs opposite bench, the women recall. Wiehl and the others werenât consciously watching the 19-year-old. They didnât notice, for example, that he exited the hall at least four times and gave friends quick rides. But his dance partners â the sister of one, then the niece of another â periodically drew their attention.
Approaching 1:30 a.m., Newman asked a younger woman to accompany her to the ladies room, âI canât,â she reportedly said. âMarvin just asked me to dance.â
Newman went with Carry Edwin instead. On their way to the restroom, the pair passed Daytonâs relatives reporting his robbery using the hallâs payphone. They saw the injured man at the foot of the stairs, surrounded by concerned friends.
That 911 call, logged by the dispatch center at 1:35 a.m., coincides with the approximate time frame police established for Hartmanâs fatal beating a half-mile away.
When she returned to the table, Edwin shared what the women heard from the victimâs sister. Roberts was present for that news, her husband Gareth later recalled.
Wiehl said she phoned police soon after Robertsâ arrest. âThereâs no way he could have left, beaten somebody to death, and then come back like nothing happened,â she recalled telling police.
She got the impression that police were receiving similar calls from other reception guests. âI was asked if I was related to him,â said Wiehl, whose account canât be verified in available police records. She said she sensed the interviewerâs attitude change as she outlined a family connection through her grandfather in another village. âBasically, the officer told me we all stick together.â
Weeks passed. Edwin mulled over that 911 call. She and Newman compared recollections about Robertsâ presence relative to that ladies room stroll.
Newman didnât know Roberts that well. She grew up in Rampart, a tiny Yukon village. Roberts was her younger brotherâs contemporary and was said to be a quiet, studious boy. She couldnât vouch for that, but she could pick Marvin out in any crowd.
You donât forget faces from the closest village downstream.
In August 1999, Newman explained to jurors how she knew Roberts wasnât behind the wheel of that getaway car.
Robertsâ conviction came as a slap.
âIf they think I was lying, they donât know me,â Newman told UAF students in a videotaped interview. âAnd I would have to be lying.â
Jailhouse retractions
An assortment of offenses landed Olson behind bars for weeks, then months and, more recently, years, following the Hartman trials in 1999.
While serving time in 2000, Olson disavowed portions of his trial testimony in conversations with Freseâs defense attorney, Robert Downes, who now serves as a judge, and with an investigator working for Roberts and Pease. The inmate declined their requests to tape those conversations.
Ring soon visited. âI was talking about recanting,â the detective said Olson assured him, âbecause I wanted out of here.â
In May 2001, the witness backed that up under oath. At a hearing largely prompted by his wavering, Olson characterized the jailhouse retractions as lies motivated by his desire to get out of jail. Judge Esch found the witnessâ conflicting statements disturbing but concluded that Olsonâs sworn trial testimony deserved more weight.
Olson again sounded off in a series of jailhouse interviews stretching from December 2002 through April 2003. These interviews were conducted both face-to-face at Fairbanks Correctional Center with a reporter and through calls initiated by the inmate. A half dozen of the telephone sessions were recorded for this story without Olsonâs knowledge, a practice lawful in Alaska by a person taking part in a conversation.
âI was threatened with perjury,â he said in an interview recorded in January 2003, âand then I was threatened with going to jail and them sending the troopers out to get me.
âI didnât want to testify,â he added. âI told them I wasnât sure. And they kept showing me bits and pieces (of the interrogation statements). I guess to make me, you know, feel sure of what I was doing. And it did.â

Curtis Sommer discusses the Hartman case in August 2004 with other members of the Marvin Roberts Project, a tribal justice group, which spent weeks reviewing trial transcripts in the basement of Tananaâs village health clinic.
Getaway car perspectives
Olson also discussed on tape how he came to identify Robertsâ blue hatchback.
âI said a beige car,â he recalled. âThen they brought me up and showed me Marvin Robertsâ car. Then it was, âNo one else drove that car but Marvin Roberts.â You know?â He (Ring) kept saying that. We went through that three or four times before he decided to put it on the record and tape it.â
Police confirmed during trial that Olson identified Robertsâ blue car through viewing a single vehicle inside the station.
That amounts to a âtainted lineupâ contends William Satterberg, a local defense attorney with no connection to the Hartman case. âYouâre showing the guy one car in the police garage. He knows why itâs there.â
While it may not have been practical to present the witness with a group of similar vehicles, the attorney said, Olsonâs identification of the car would be more credible if it resulted from reviewing photos offering a comparable selection of cars.
Wells, the eyewitness evidence researcher, concurs. âAll tests of identification should be conducted using the lineup-type method in which there are fillers,â the professor commented by e-mail. âThis is just as true of vehicles as it is with people.â
He regards the garage showing âhighly suggestiveâ and hardly a fair test of Olsonâs memory. âIt is perhaps merely a test of the witnessâs willingness to cooperate with and corroborate the theory of the police.â
As recently as August 2006, Ring denied the witness ever wavered on the getaway carâs color. âArlo Olson never stated anything about a beige car,â the detective stated in an affidavit filed opposing Ventâs ongoing bid for a new trial.
The detective had no trouble buying Olsonâs account of the distant robbery, he said in a 2002 interview, because earlier that same evening the witness had encountered the same group, riding in the same car. âSo he saw them. Basically face to face.â

Kathy Mayo Roberts, far right, refers to a map of downtown Fairbanks posted on the clinic wall. With Roberts is Julie Roberts Hyslop.
In 2004, residents of Tanana launched their own investigation. After several weeks sifting trial transcripts in the basement of the local health clinic, members of the tribally sanctioned Marvin Roberts Project zeroed in on the same exchange outside the Eagles Hall.
The witness said that a little two-door blue car rolled up alongside him during an earlier cigarette break. âGeorge leaned out the passenger side window and asked if I wanted to get high,â Olson testified at one trial. âHe was kind of leaning up through the window,â he said during another trial appearance.
Hereâs the clue that sent Tananaâs amateur detectives in hot pursuit: Roberts, they realized, owned a hatchback model â92 Dodge Shadow.
Olson placed Frese riding in the rear of the hatchback, sitting directly behind wide-shouldered, 200-pound Pease.
âThat rear window doesnât open,â former tribal judge William âPongeeâ Carlo pointed out to a visiting reporter. âSo how is he leaning out of it?â
This February, police allowed the News-Miner to inspect Robertsâ car, which remains in city storage as evidence. The hatchbackâs side rear windows are indeed immobile. However, the 54-inch-long front passenger door extends far enough back to allow a rear passenger to poke his head into its window opening. If Olsonâs account is reliable, big Pease would likely have to have cooperated inside the car by tilting his front passenger seat forward.
âI am Spartacusâ
Setting aside the merits of the verdicts, the conduct of the Hartman trials left many Athabascans seething about perceived racist stereotypes.
âAssumptions were made about Native people, in general, sticking together. That was very hurtful,â declared Shirley Lee, then the executive director of Fairbanks Native Association, speaking outside the courthouse at a rally staged on the 10th anniversary of Hartmanâs death and the suspectsâ arrests.
The tribal detectivesâ effort extended to documenting perceived anti-Native bias in the last trial.
Asked for an example, Carla Klooster, a non-Native council employee and 25-year-Tanana resident, reached for a sticky note. âPage 3,145, line 17,â she said. At least five people testified they saw Roberts around 1:30 a.m. He was out on the dance floor with this girl or that girl. He gave a couple a lift or fetched a womanâs orange juice.
Prosecutor Jeff OâBryant, who recently retired from the Fairbanks District Attorneyâs office, made the most of those overlapping sightings. âMr. Roberts has got some problems with his alibi,â he pointed out to the jury. âHe canât be in all those places at once.â The prosecutor implied it wasnât simply confusion.

Prosecutor Jeff OâBryant, seen here in an unrelated 2007 case, caused a ripple effect through the Native community during Marvin Robertâs trial by comparing Native loyalty to the slave scene in âSpartacus.â OâBryantâs comments came as a response to witnesses saying Roberts was seen dancing at a wedding reception at Eagles Hall the night of John Hartmanâs fatal assault.
âIt reminded me,â he told jurors, âof the movie where the Romans have a bunch of prisoners, slaves, and thereâs an uprising amongst the slaves because of the conditions. And the leader of the uprising, apparently, was Spartacus.â
When the Romans came looking for Spartacus, OâBryant observed, âmuch like the witnesses hereâ slaves stepped forward declaring âI am Spartacus,â one after another.
In the village clinic basement, heads nodded as Klooster reread the passage.
The dramatic scene from director Stanley Kubrickâs 1960 Oscar-winning movie still inspires frequent reference in popular culture; the slavesâ self-sacrifice is commonly held up as embodying true loyalty.
But the prosecutorâs argument wasnât taken that way in Tanana, recalled Klooster in an interview this past December. âWhatâs the basis of the loyalty?â she said, pointing out that while people standing up for Roberts knew him, most werenât close friends. âItâs basically saying the loyalty stems from cultural identity; that one Native will back up another Native.
âThatâs such a ridiculous statement,â added the former tribal administrator, citing decades of experience observing life in a small Athabascan community, âbecause itâs so absolutely not reflective of Native culture. Natives donât back up other Natives just because theyâre Native.â
In an interview in May 2007, OâBryant declined to discuss the reactions to his Spartacus comparison.
As a young man, he double-majored at ŸĂŸĂÈÈÊÓÆ” in Yupik Eskimo and linguistics. His professional silence toward accusations of bias leveled in letters and tribal resolutions shouldnât be taken as indifference. âIt rankles me more than you can possibly know,â OâBryant said, leaning forward, eyes wide. âIt rankles me.â
Downward spiral
Olson, between 1995 and 2000, was convicted seven times for assaulting the same girlfriend and twice for assaulting individuals who sought to protect her. In 2000, he served time for hitting and choking his mother.
A year later, he landed in jail for punching a Unalakleet woman.
In August 2002, police arrested him on a charge of drunken driving, his second such charge in a month. In one incident, both of the coupleâs kids were in the car when he rear-ended another vehicle.
That November, Olson kicked in his girlfriendâs apartment door, held a knife to her throat threatening her life and, according to the indictment against him, kidnapped her for several hours.
Troopers rescued the woman.
At the time of his arrest, Olsonâs blood-alcohol content registered 0.281, more than triple Alaskaâs intoxication standard. He had downed two kinds of prescription pills.
His life was ruined, Olson sobbed to troopers in a taped interview. He blamed stress from the Hartman case.
âA few years ago I testified as the stateâs key witness in the John Hartman murder case,â Olson told Judge Richard Savell at his April 2003 sentencing on a charge reduced through a plea bargain. âI did what I thought was my civic and patriotic duty. Most of all, I did what I thought was right.â
In a voice cracking with emotion, Olson described life as an outcast. âNo longer am I welcome at Native gatherings, functions, places of work and homes.â
He urged the judge to consider his special burden. âJail time imposed on me will be hard and unbearable,â he said. âIâll have to do it in solitary confinement. I am known by everyone as a rat and as a snitch.â
âWhat has changed,â Savell countered, âsince the first assault against the female in January 1996? I canât point to anything,â the judge said. âNo improvement, only escalation, increased frequency and more of it.â
He sentenced Olson to four and a half years in prison, with an additional five years suspended as incentive to reform.
Former Yukon Kuskokwim Schools superintendent Glenn Olson approached as a bailiff slipped handcuffs on his son.
âGod love you,â he called softly.
Mugging linked to murder by distant witness
1) Mugging victim Franklin Dayton told police he was knocked to the ground on the sidewalk just past the Poldine Carlo Building, near a parking lot entrance. Police measured the distance separating the victim from witness Arlo Olson â 550 feet â but left it out of case reports.
4) Police theorized that the group responsible for Daytonâs robbery fled in a car down 1st Avenue, fatally assaulting John Hartman minutes later at 9th Avenue and Barnette Street.

A road map showing a portion of downtown Fairbanks
2) Arlo Olson was standing in a crowd on the front landing of Eagles Hall when he observed Daytonâs robbery. Four days after the crime, Olson identified the murder suspects from newspaper mug shots.
3) 911 alibi? One of the men Olson identified, Marvin Roberts, was observed inside the hall near the dance floor when Daytonâs robbery was reported via 911. Others, however, said they saw Roberts elsewhere at the time, a point that the prosecution said undermines the alibi claim.
Tomorrow:
Brian OâDonoghue is a UAF assistant professor of journalism. Former students Tom Delaune, Laurel Ford, Gary Moore, Robinson Duffy, Kelsa Shilanski and Sharice Walker contributed to this story.
Let the music play: A night on the dance floor comes into question
Marvin Robertsâ claimed alibi rests upon observers who recall him dancing at the Eagles Hall at the approximate time John Hartman suffered his fatal assault.
But was anyone dancing during those fateful minutes?
According to the prosecutionâs final pair of witnesses, the band was on break when a 911 caller reported an unrelated robbery near the Eagles Hall.
Nick Monroe, a member of the band playing that night in October 1997, testified that he was on break when he first heard that someone associated with the reception had been kicked or hurt. Reception guest Claude Andrew Koyukuk also remembered the band taking a breather as he saw relatives bandaging Franklin Dayton, whoâd staggered into the hall following a mugging.
Others described Roberts dancing or heading for the dance floor just before Daytonâs return caused a stir.
Gareth Edwin, of Nenana, described Roberts among those listening as word spread of the crime.
Eileen Newmanâs account encompassed both aspects. Her niece begged off a trip to the ladies room to dance with Roberts. On her return, Newman testified, she bumped into Daytonâs relatives using the pay phone for that 911 call.
Citing the bandâs break, prosecutor Jeff OâBryant challenged Roberts alibi. âHe canât be dancing when thereâs no music.â
Defense attorney Dick Madson reminded jurors another witness mentioned hearing about the mugging as he came off the dance floor.
âWhat does that mean?â Madson asked. âHe wasnât out there dancing when there was no music going on. It means the band was playing.â
By all accounts, few in the rocking crowd kept close watch on the clock. Only one event taking place within the hall that night is time certain: Police at 1:35 a.m. logged the 911 call reporting Daytonâs assault. That roughly coincides with Hartmanâs fatal beating a half mile away.
Hours of recorded police and emergency traffic survive in the Hartman case files. Audio of that particular 911 call might shed light on the bandâs activity. However, that call wasnât found on case tapes reviewed for this story.
â Brian OâDonoghue
ABOUT âDECADE OF DOUBTâ
This seven-part series offers no proof of guilt or innocence. It does document gaps in the police investigation that raise questions about the victimâs last conscious hours. It points out that the group convicted of John Hartmanâs murder may have been prosecuted with forms of evidence identified later in national studies as contributing to some wrongful prosecutions elsewhere. And it shows how rulings from this stateâs courts have undermined Alaska Native confidence in the justice system by keeping juries from weighing all thatâs known about the crime.
Among the seriesâ observations:
- The police investigation remained focused on suspects flagged through a pair of confessions, subsequently retracted, despite lab tests that yielded no supporting evidence.
- Jurors remained unaware that state crime lab experts couldnât match Freseâs boots with photos of Hartmanâs bruises. Though it bore the labâs logo, the suggestive exhibit presented at trial was a non-scientific photo overlay assembled by police and the district attorney. Recent studies have shown that evidence lacking forensic merit often figures in convictions that are later overturned.
- Detectives referred to fictitious evidence throughout the interrogations that yielded confessions from Vent and Frese. Employing such trickery on suspects who profess no memory of a crime, while standard practice in 1997, today draws specific cautions in the nationâs standard-setting criminal interrogation manual. The revisions reflect lessons learned from re-examining tactics used obtaining confessions later proven false in cases that sent innocent people to jail.
- The stateâs case strongly relied upon identifications made by an eyewitness standing 550 feet from a robbery. The distance raises the possibility of witness misidentification, which has emerged as the leading common denominator among hundreds of errant murder and rape convictions.
- Police paid scant attention to the last person known to have been with Hartman. Chris Stone, a 14-year-old self-described methamphetamine addict, had been hospitalized following a similar assault only weeks prior. And jurors never heard about Stoneâs attention-getting entrance into Carrs-Foodland about the time Hartman lay dying in the street. Also, no one involved in the Hartman case had access to Stoneâs sworn statement, sealed in an unrelated juvenile proceeding, suggesting, under one interpretation, awareness of his friendâs plight.
All of this has contributed, in the eyes of many, to a decade of doubt.