AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE (Continued)

III. STAGED BURGLARY

Even those untrained in criminal investigative procedures know detectives would suspect a burglary when evidence of forced entry into the home is present. Indeed, with burglary as a potential motive for this murder, Montgomery County and Upper Merion detectives closely examined the physical evidence and considered all other available facts and circumstances before reaching the conclusion that the killer staged the scene to make it appear that a burglary had taken place to mislead the police. The following factors support this conclusion:

1.) Whoever broke the glass on the laundry room door did not make entry into the home at that point. As indicated above, the glass shards fell into the laundry room to a distance of about five feet from the door. The shards were not walked on or tracked any further into the house. The laundry room door remained in the closed position, requiring the “burglar” to close the door behind him upon entry.

2.) Based upon our experience, burglars most often target unoccupied homes and purposely search for indicators that homes are vacant. At the time of the murder, the victim’s car was in the driveway, suggesting that someone was home. Detectives canvassed the neighborhood and learned there were numerous other homes where no cars were parked in the driveway. In fact, the house directly next to the Robb’s had no one home and a UPS package clearly visible at the front of the home. In short, the Robb residence presented a much less desirable target than other homes in the neighborhood.

3) There was no evidence this “burglar” took anything from the home or sexually assaulted the victim.

4.) As noted above, it appears the victim was in the process of wrapping Christmas gifts at the time she was killed in the kitchen. A small television in the kitchen was on. The volume was very low. She would certainly have heard the breaking of the glass in the laundry room and responded by running to safety and/or called 911 from the telephone right next to her. She did not. This suggests the window was not broken before she was attacked. It further suggests that the victim knew her killer because she allowed the killer into her presence without raising an alarm of fleeing.

5.) As noted below, the small family dog, Copper, has the run of the house. We find it unlikely a “burglar” would take the time to lock the dog in an upstairs bedroom.

6.) A trail of bloody boot prints led from the kitchen to the garage. Due to the layout of the downstairs family room and the extensive clutter present throughout, we find it unlikely a “burglar”, unfamiliar with the Robb residence, would choose this means of escape. We find it much more probable that a burglar would leave the house via the route familiar to him, in this case, the laundry room door. Furthermore, flight out the garage would have required the “burglar” to manually open the garage door and then close it behind him. It is highly unlikely a burglar would choose to leave in daylight through the large, garage door, highly visible from the street, when he could have left through the laundry room door with the broken window, completely hidden from the street.

7.) Burglars do not typically assault homeowners. In those rare instances in which a physical confrontation does occur, injury to the homeowner is unlikely. In this case, not only did the “burglar” assault the victim, but he did so in the most brutal of fashions. The “burglar” who assaulted Ellen Robb did not mean to escape detection from a burglary, he intended to kill.

8) Because the force used to kill Mrs. Robb was far in excess of what he believed was necessary, District Attorney Castor consulted with Timothy Michals, M.D., and Steven Samuel, Ph.D., experts in the field of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, respectively. They examined photographs of the crime scene and more particularly, of the victim, and concluded that the “obsessive intensity of force used against Mrs. Robb went beyond that necessary to cause her death.” According to Drs. Michals and Samuel, “the killing has the signature of a need to depersonalize Ms. Robb such that she is hardly recognizable as a human being.” Dr. Michals and Dr. Samuel further opined “this was likely a blitz attack that occurred without warning. The offender in this type of killing would want to view, at close range, the confrontation.” She was so severely beaten, she appears more like an “it,” or a thing. In our experience, we have never seen a burglar behave in that manner.

IV. MOTIVE—PENDING DIVORCE

      A. Interview of Marybeth Pedlow

Upper Merion Detective Jim Godby interviewed Marybeth Pedlow, a friend and neighbor of Ellen Robb. Pedlow reported that Mrs. Robb told her she hired a divorce attorney recently and was planning to leave her husband. Pedlow said Mrs. Robb told her that Dr. Robb was hiding money and this was creating problems for the pair.

      B. Interview of Gary Gregory

On Saturday, December 23, 2006 Detective Les Glauner interviewed Gary Gregory, the victim’s brother. He told police that Dr. Robb knew the victim had recently consulted an attorney and that a divorce action was pending. He also spoke to Dr. Robb about the police investigation into the victim’s death. During that conversation, Dr. Robb told his brother-in-law that he did not tell the police everything he knew about the pending divorce. In fact, Dr. Robb lied to police concerning the likely motive for Ellen Robb’s murder. (See statement of Dr. Robb below)

      C. Interview of the Robbs’ Daughter

Detectives interviewed the couple’s 12-year-old daughter who reported that her mother told her within the past two weeks that she and her father were divorcing. Mrs. Robb told her daughter that she was expecting to receive a lot of money from the child’s father because he kept a lot of money in banks overseas. The child described her father’s frequent overseas trips to places like Japan, England and Israel (his native country). The child told detectives that her mother and father do not share a bedroom and that her father keeps his bedroom locked. The child reported that the family dog was never kept locked inside any bedroom and that she had the run of the house.

      D. Interview of John Murray

On Sunday, December 31, 2006 we interviewed John Murray, a real estate agent in the King of Prussia area. Mr. Murray told the detectives he met with the victim on December 9, 2006 and with Dr. Robb on December 12, 2006 concerning a King of Prussia residence Ellen was to begin occupying on January 1, 2007. According to Mr. Murray, the monthly rent for the apartment was to be $1550. In other discussion of her finances and the need for her own apartment, Ellen told Mr. Murray of her pending divorce, and the fact she would be getting $4,000 per month from Dr. Robb.

      E. Interview of Al Shemtob, Esquire

On Tuesday, Janaury 2, 2007 we interviewed the victim’s divorce attorney, Al Shemtob, Esquire. Mr. Shemtob told the detectives he met with Ellen Robb on October 13, 2006 and has performed other legal services for her in connection with her desire to end her marriage with her husband. Mr. Shemtob’s last contact was on December 20, 2006, less than 48 hours from the time she was murdered. During that telephone call, Ellen Robb said had located a townhouse in Upper Merion and that she asked her husband to move into it. Because he declined to do so, Ellen told Mr. Shemtob that she intended to move into the home.

Mr. Shemtob confirmed that he had calculated various financial scenarios for Mrs. Robb that depended upon the nature of her custody of Olivia. Mr. Shemtob advised Mrs. Robb she could expect approximately $4000 per month from her husband. As this arrangement would last for 10-15 years, Mrs. Robb expected to receive $400,000 – $600,000.

      F. Interview of Rebecca Rector

On Thursday, Janaury 4, 2007 we interviewed Rebecca Rector, a high school friend of Ellen Robb’s. She told detectives that on October 27, 2006 she called Ellen to invite her to her 50th birthday party. Ellen said she could not go, as she had a black eye. According to Mrs. Rector, Ellen went on to say that her husband hit her, and that he treated her terribly.

      G. Interview of Joshua Bowden

On Thursday, December 28, 2006 we interviewed Joshua Bowden, a longtime friend of the victim. He related to the detectives the details of a conversation he had with Ellen in January or February of 2006. The victim confided in him that she was having marital problems and that she wanted to move out and get a divorce. She told Mr. Bowden she could do neither because she did not have the financial means to initiate the process. Mr. Bowden also told detectives that Ellen told him that if anything ever happened to her, [her husband] should be considered a prime suspect.

      H. Financial Drain

Drs. Michals and Samuel also tendered their expert opinion concerning the mindset of Mrs. Robb’s killer. With regard to motive, Drs. Michals and Samuel opined: "Another facet of an overkill type murder is criminal' s perception of the victim. In this case, the injuries indicate that the victim was a high risk to the offender. Overkilling makes the statement that the victim had to be rendered weak and non-threatening. What the killer wanted was power over her life. This theory could fit with the notion that Dr. Robb was worried that a second divorce, which was impending, would ruin him."