AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE (Continued)

VI. FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION

      A. Chinese Market

As previously mentioned, Dr. Robb told detectives that he purchased fruit in Philadelphia on the morning of the murder. He made a point of telling them that the fruit was on the seat of his BMW and that we could check the bag for the address of the market. In his written statement to police, he purposely extended his estimate of how long he spent in the market from 20-30 to 20 to 40 minutes. Additionally, Dr. Robb also told detectives he received a parking ticket earlier in the day when he went to a Wawa on Chestnut Street.

On Friday, December 22, 2006 Montgomery County Detectives Mark Minzola and Jeffrey Koch went to the King Market, 138 N. 10th Street in Philadelphia. There they spoke with cashier Liu Sai. The detectives showed Sai a photograph of Dr. Robb and she recognized him as a regular customer. Contrary to Dr. Robb’s claim that he spent up to 40 minutes in the market on the day of the murder, Ms. Sai told the detectives she was certain Dr. Robb was not in the market that day. The King Market is a cash business and thus there were no register receipts reflective of Dr. Robb’s fruit purchase.

      B. Wawa

On Friday, December 22, 2006 detectives then went to the Wawa market located at 3604 Chestnut Street in Philadelphia. Detectives obtained copies of the video surveillance tapes reflecting Dr. Robb’s purchase of a 20 ounce bottle of soda at 11:56 AM. Dr. Robb said he drank this soda during his walk from the Wawa to his car and then discarded the bottle in a trashcan. Review of the videotape confirms that Dr. Robb was wearing the same clothing he wore at the time of his interview with police.

On Friday, December 22, 2006 Montgomery County Detective Michael Reynolds and Upper Merion Police Detective Michael Milke went to the University of Pennsylvania where they confirmed Dr. Robb had come to work and turned in his semester grades. While in the area of Dr. Robb’s office, the detectives noticed several vending machines. All sold 20 ounce bottles of soda. Furthermore, the detectives noted several other vending carts and businesses that sold soda.

      C. Dr. Robb’s “Emergency” Call to Police

Detectives retrieved the recording of Dr. Robb’s initial call to the Upper Merion Police Department. Curiously, Dr. Robb did not dial 911. Instead, he dialed the 10-digit non-emergency number, 610-265-3232. We find this extremely unusual given the circumstances. Furthermore, detectives learned that on June 16, 2006 at 1:10 AM, Dr. Robb dialed 911 to report that he had a nosebleed and required assistance at his home. We can conceive of no legitimate reason why Dr. Robb would dial the non-emergency number upon discovery of a brutally murdered person in his home and yet dial 911 to report his own minor, medical emergency. Instead, we surmise Dr. Robb called the non-emergency line with the belief, albeit mistaken, that the line would not be recorded.

Detectives recovered the parking ticket mentioned by Dr. Robb. It showed he received the expired parking meter citation in the 3600 block of Chestnut Street at 11:52 AM.

      D. Undercover Operation

On Wednesday, December 27, 2006 someone from Burhan’’s Glass Company called the Upper Merion Police to report that Dr. Robb had contacted him and requested that he repair the broken laundry room window. Montgomery County Detective Lieutenant Anthony Spagnoletti assumed the role of the glazier’s assistant and went with the actual glazier to the Robb residence to take measurements for replacement glass. Lt. Spagnoletti told Dr. Robb that he recognized him from the news accounts and knew he was a suspect in his wife’s murder. In fact, in that morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer an article appeared saying that police believed that the killer faked the burglary, and specifically mentioned the way police found the glass as leading them to that conclusion. Lt. Spagnoletti mentioned this to Dr. Robb. During the course of their conversation, Lt. Spagnoletti intimated that he had a prior arrest in Montgomery County and that he had disdain for the District Attorney’s Office. In the ensuing conversation, Lt. Spagnoletti asked Dr. Robb if anything was missing from the house because burglars usually steal things when they brake into homes. Lt Spagnoletti suggested that if nothing was stolen, the police would find that suspicious. Dr. Robb said that he could not immediately locate his wife’s purse, but that he did not believe any valuables were missing. Lt. Spagnoletti further suggested to Dr. Robb that for his sake it was important to report to the police what valuable items are missing or they would think he was the killer.

On January 4, 2007 Lt. Spagnoletti and a Burhan’s Glass glazier went to 670 Forest Road to install the replacement windowpane. Dr. Robb told Lt. Spagnoletti he was glad to see him and invited him into the kitchen where the two spoke for nearly 45 minutes. During this conversation, centered on the murder investigation, Dr. Robb told Lt. Spagnoletti that he had checked his belongings and compiled a list of missing valuables. He said he gave this list to his attorney who would turn over to police. With that, the glass installation was complete but before the glaziers departed, Dr. Robb asked Lt. Spagnoletti if he could reach him through the glass company and added he would like to meet him for a drink. An attorney working for Dr. Robb has not turned a list of stolen items over to police to date.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe Dr. Robb’s self-reported activities following the discovery of his brutally murdered wife’s body are suspect:

1.)   Dr. Robb reported he came home to find the lifeless body of his wife on the floor of their kitchen. Confronted with this bloodied, horrific scene, Dr. Robb did not retreat from the house and call 911. Instead, he put down his laptop and briefcase and “touched her face.” He then picked up his items and walked to his bedroom where he placed his laptop and briefcase.

2.)   Dr. Robb told police that while he was in his bedroom he heard his dog barking in his daughter’s bedroom. For that reason, he went to check on the dog. Only secondarily did he say that he went to the bedroom to see if his daughter was there.

3.)    According to Dr. Robb, he continued to look for a telephone to call police. Ignoring the operable telephones in his and his daughter’s bedrooms, he then went downstairs to the kitchen to find a telephone. Unsuccessful in his search for a phone, he suddenly developed the urge to urinate. Under these circumstances, detectives find this fact incredible, and believe Dr. Robb invented this piece of information to explain his reason for going to the laundry room and, by chance, finding the broken window.

4.)   The broken window at the back door appears staged. Whoever broke the window on the laundry room door from the outside did not gain entry into the house at that point because none of the glass was trampled under foot or tracked around the crime scene. A number of other factors support the conclusion that the burglary was staged.

5.)    Ellen Robb’s killer wore work boots or shoes with a similar heavy-lugged tread. Dr. Robb first told the detectives he had several pairs of work boots. He then changed his statement to read that he no longer possessed them. No work boots were found in the house.

6.)   Dr. Robb lied to the police about an obvious motive for this murder, his knowledge of his wife’s recent plans to divorce him and obtain a significant portion of his wealth.

7.)   Instead of calling 911 (as he had done previously for a minor medical issue) to report the murder in his home, Dr. Robb dialed the 10-digit, non-emergency line to the Upper Merion Police Department. He told the dispatcher his wife’s head had been “cracked,” a term suggestive of the beating that actually occurred and not the gunshot wound experienced detectives believed she had suffered. How could Dr. Robb know this unless he was the killer? So convinced were investigators that Mrs. Robb had been shot, that an experienced ballistics expert swabbed Dr. Robb’s hands for gunshot residue. A veteran homicide prosecutor also informed the chief law enforcement officer of the county that she concurred in the judgment.

8.)   As noted above, evidence supports the conclusion that the victim was killed while in the process of wrapping Christmas gifts. Dr. Robb’s statement to police that his wife was wrapping gifts when he last saw her leads to the reasonable conclusion that she was killed near in time to when he says he last saw her.

9.)   Experts in forensic psychiatry and forensic psychology believe the victim was the specific target of the killer and represented a threat to him. These experts conclude the killing was “overkill” designed to punish the victim for this threat by turning the victim into an “it” rather than a person. The pending divorce action would threaten Dr. Robb’s financial security and his relationship with his daughter. Drs. Michals and Samuels opined that this would account for why Dr. Robb killed his wife and the brutal manner in which he carried out the murder.

Based upon the foregoing, we request an Arrest Warrant be issued charging Rafael Robb, white male, DOB: 10/31/1950, 670 Forest Road, Wayne, Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania, with violation of Pennsylvania Crimes Code Section 2502 (a) & (c), First and Third Degree Murder; Section 907, Possessing Instruments of Crime; Section 4906 (a)(1) &(2), False Reports to Law Enforcement Authorities; Section 4904 (a)(1), Unsworn Falsification to Authorities; and Section 4910 (1), Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence.