John Prante murder of Karla Brown in 1978

This case from 1978 is significant in the world of forensics, and the episode's collection of Experts confirms this. As described in his 1995 book Mindhunter, John Douglas is renowned for helping kick off the FBI's behavioral profiling program. His appearance in this episode was the only interview given by Douglas in the series. The same footage was reused in Church Disappearance (s06e10) when Douglas' profile of Cassie Hansen's abductor was described.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

When Karla Brown's body was exhumed for a second autopsy, it was performed by St. Louis County's Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Mary Case. No stranger to forensic pathology, Dr. Case is featured on numerous episodes of Forensic Files, including Similar Circumstances (s03e06) and Bump in the Night (s10e34). Rounding out this cavalcade of forensic all-stars was Lowell Levine, the prominent forensic odontologist featured in at least half a dozen different episodes. And Dr. Levine wasn't even the only odontologist on this case – Homer Campbell was the expert who gave the linchpin lecture two years after Karla's murder. It was Dr. Campbell who enhanced the crime scene photographs and first noticed the bitemark.

Several of the YouTube commenters were critical of the police's initial investigative work in Karla Brown's case. The remarks include how the hair and blood evidence on the tray table was initially overlooked, why the head area wasn't closely examined during the initial autopsy, but mainly how the bitemark on Karla's shoulder was missed. I think these "armchair detectives" might be taking a few things for granted. The quality of photographs in 1978 paled in comparison to the dazzling images we see every day. It wasn't until Dr. Campbell enhanced the photos that the bitemark was detectable. The photo shared in the episode still didn't clearly resemble a bitemark – I doubt most laypersons would have recognized it.

We should also regard that the tray table was not initially suspected in the attack on Karla. Investigators don't have the time or resources to microscopically examine every angle of every object at a crime scene. But after Dr. Campbell suggested it was a possible weapon, a closer examination revealed the forensic evidence and confirmed it. As far as the autopsy goes, one can't be sure. Not every autopsy follows the same set of procedures, and it's impossible to know which other cases and circumstances were occurring at the time of Karla Brown's autopsy. But to patently call the police work "sloppy" (as suggested by a few YouTube commenters) seems excessive.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

The specifics provided in the episode's introduction were curious. The reenactment scene showed Karla laying facedown, but not with her head submerged in a "bucket" of water. She was simply flat on the floor. And the "bucket" reference evolved into being called a "barrel" over the course of the episode. Judging from the crime scene photos, it seems the metal vessel was something in between. Lastly in the intro, Peter Thomas narrates, "It looked as if the killer had committed the perfect crime." But there were many clues at the scene: The water and blood on the sofa cushions, the blood droplets on the floor, the weaponized tray tables, the coffee carafe, the socks tied around Karla's neck, the electrical cord used to loosely bind her hands, and the buttoned-up sweater. I feel a perfect crime would leave far fewer clues.

Bitemarks and hold-back evidence

Prosecutor Don Weber was very close to this case – regard that he and journalist Charles Bosworth teamed up to write the best seller Silent Witness. But one of Weber's statements was troubling. He starts by describing that physical evidence (such as fingerprints or a bitemark) being more reliable than eyewitness testimony. This is true. But then he goes on to remark, "Bitemarks, properly preserved, with an identified defendant, could give you the defendant as good as a fingerprint." Hopefully he was reeducated at some point after this statement. The value of a bitemark is better described by Dr. Richard Souviron from the episode Once Bitten (s08e07): "The best that a forensic dentist can give is reasonable certainty, and that means that that's the highest level we give." In that episode, Ray Krone was tried and convicted of murdering Kim Ancona not once but twice, based solely on a misattributed bitemark.

The idea that John Prante would be able to "look over the shoulders of police" as they investigated the Karla Brown crime scene was ludicrous. Investigators aren't going to let any "Random Joe" down into the basement where a murder just occurred, risking contamination of their scene. The condition in which Karla's body was found and the bitemark were hold-back evidence. John Prante's big mouth, and the testimony of the reliable "friends" he had spoken to about Karla's murder were crucial in his conviction. Loose lips has led several perpetrators into police's hands. Consider Michael Bryant's murder of Edith Ann Haynes from Yes, In Deed (s12e28). Bryant received a phone call about the fire at Edith's home as he exited a movie. Though the caller didn't mention that Edith was dead, Michael Bryant drastically over-reacted, leading investigators to intensify their focus on him as a suspect.

John Prante didn't initially intend to kill

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

It was said that John Prante spent a good deal of time at his friend's house – the friend that lived directly next to the home Karla and Mark were moving in to. It was also shared that Karla Brown had taken June 21st off of work to unpack. Assuming it was John Prante who interrupted Karla's telephone call that fateful afternoon, how did he know how long Mark would be away? Prante spent a good deal of time in the couple's home, specifically in the basement staging the crime scene (albeit poorly). What would he've done if Mark came home unexpectedly?

The two socks tied neatly around Karla's neck were unusual. They weren't a matched pair – in fact, each sock's mate was found in separate locations in the house. So how had these two unrelated socks come together? This and the other items that came together to make up Prante's staged scene told more about the perpetrator's lack of sophistication than if he'd just left everything unaltered. The bindings that were not tight enough to effectively restrain Karla's movement and the sweater with its top button fastened were revealing. And why had he bothered to put any type of top on Karla if he left her nude from the waist-down?

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

Like a lot of first-time killers, Prante made a half-hearted attempt to clean up some of the evidence at the crime scene. He might as well have not bothered, but it seems novice murderers are optimistic. Some spend very little time and effort before realizing the fault in their thinking – consider Maurice Wallace after killing Olamide Adeyooye in her apartment in Covet Thy Neighbor (s13e35). His attempts quickly went from pouring bleach on her carpet to simply covering the stains with her laundry. It's worse when the failed clean-up attempt ends up creating additional evidence. When Michael Peterson began cleaning blood spatter from the staircase in A Novel Idea (s11e22), it's believed his wife Kathleen may've still been alive. As Peterson bludgeoned her again, additional spatter ended up on top of the area that'd already been washed.

The FBI, profiling, and Volkswagens

There's no doubt that the FBI's innovation in creating the Behavioral Science Unit has been helpful in countless cases over the years. The consistency in behavior and characteristics among certain types of offenders is undeniable, and using this to narrow a list of suspects is valuable – it can even save additional lives if it means the perpetrator can be taken off the streets before he claims additional victims.

John Douglas wrote about his role in the Larry Gene Bell case from 1985. Bell claimed two young victims in South Carolina, and Douglas assisted police in their interrogation to solicit a confession from the killer. His and other agents' offender profiles have been mentioned in other cases in Forensic Files. Douglas supplied the profile for Cassie Hansen's abductor and killer in the early 1980s. And the FBI created a profile of the serial murderer known as the Southside Strangler. In this latter instance, Timothy Spencer wasn't a typical perpetrator, so it's unknown if the agency's profile was helpful.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

I can't remember which of Douglas' books references the Karla Brown case – based on the few I've read, I would guess more than one. I've found that Douglas (and Mark Olshaker) tends to recycle some of the content from book to book. At last count, I found over 15 books attributed to Douglas, nine of them with Olshaker.

The Volkswagen prediction that Douglas has included numerous times makes an appearance in this episode. Recall that Crime Scene Technician Alva Busch seemed a bit befuddled when the specificity of Douglas' profile went on to describe this make of car and even its probable color. John Douglas typically refers to a Volkswagen Beetle when making this suggestion, so I'm curious if the Volkswagen van that Prante owned qualified as a match to the profile. And Prante's van's color was never mentioned – might it've been the orange or red suggested by Douglas?

Lots of answers but still some questions

Karla Lou Brown was the youngest of three sisters, and she was just 22 years old when she was killed on June 21, 1978. Meanwhile, research about John Prante showed that he was significantly older, seemingly aged 28 or 29 around that time. So why does the show's narrative have Prante calling to Brown, "We went to school together. Remember me?" Prante didn't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed, but I doubt he was held back long enough that he and Karla would've ever known each other in school. Might he have known her sister(s)? Wood River is a fairly small town, just over the Mississippi river and north of Saint Louis.

Meanwhile, I'm curious of the technologies that Dr. Homer Campbell was describing and using in 1980 when he gave the photo enhancement lecture at the University of New Mexico. His process was described as a system that uses "cameras, monitors, and computers to show details of crime scene photographs that cannot otherwise be seen." He mentioned the system had already been in use for years by engineers and archeologists. No matter how unsophisticated such a technique might seem today, it provided the necessary break in the case that led to John Prante's arrest and conviction.

For the curious, Karla Brown's fiancé "Mark Hart" was actually named Mark Fair. They had just moved to 979 Acton Avenue in Wood River, Illinois. One final item: What does it say about the intentions of YouTube users when I find that the site's search utility offers this predictive suggestion:

• Entry: "forensic files body of evidence"
• Suggestion: "forensic files body of evidence actress" 🤔

Where is John Prante now in 2024?

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

John Prante was finally convicted of Karla Brown's murder in 1983 and sentenced to 75 years. The program in effect at the time of Prante's incarceration allowed a day reduced from his sentence for every "good" day served. John Prante was released from prison in 2019 after serving 36 years. With help from the Exoneration Project, Prante sought to clear his name, but on February 11, 2020, Associate Judge Neil Schroeder denied the petition. In early 2022, 72-year-old John Prante was charged with a DUI after running a stop sign and crashing his 2005 Saturn. At the time, he was quoted as saying he had "not been this high or drunk in 37 years." No one was injured in the incident.