We have noted the murder of Christine Lugo, the Dunkin’ Donuts manager senselessly murdered on June 5th, after having given the robber the cash drawer for which he asked.
The alleged killer, Keith Gibson, also spelled Gibbson, is now facing multiple homicide and other felony charges. From the Delaware News-Journal:
Esteban Parra | Delaware News Journal | July 6, 2021 | 4:58 PM EDT | Updated: 8:32 PM EDT
A 39-year-old man linked to multiple killings in Delaware and Philadelphia has been indicted on 41 felony charges in connection with multiple slayings, assaults and robberies, the Delaware Attorney General’s Office said on Tuesday.
Keith Gibson went on a “brutal crime spree” in Delaware, killing two people and hurting four others over the course of about three weeks, prosecutors say. Gibson is also a suspect in multiple slayings committed in Pennsylvania earlier this year, including that of his 54-year-old mother.
“This indictment lays out one of the most vicious, staggering crime sprees I’ve seen in my career,” Attorney General Kathy Jennings said in a statement. “It is even more disturbing to think, based on what investigators have revealed in Pennsylvania, that this may just be the tip of the iceberg.
“We have assigned some of the DOJ’s most experienced prosecutors to this case,” she added, “and we will ensure that this man faces justice for the senseless carnage that he has caused.”
Gibson, who was previously convicted of manslaughter and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, was released from prison on Dec. 20 after 13 years of incarceration. He violated the terms of his probation and was briefly held before being released again on April 27 – even after probation officers disclosed he was suspected in his mother’s killing.
Delaware prosecutors say Gibson shot and killed 28-year-old Leslie Ruiz-Basilio on May 15 during a robbery at a Metro by T-Mobile store in Elsmere. He also stole her vehicle, according to prosecutors.
There’s more at the original, which unfortunately includes this:
For subscribers: How a man wanted in 3 recent killings in Philadelphia, Delaware was out on the street
I did telephone the News-Journal reporter, to see if he’d bend the rules and e-mail that story to me, but, alas!, he wouldn’t.
Which brings us to WHYY’s version version:
By Cris Barrish | June 16, 2021
When Keith Gibson faced a judge in Delaware in April for violating his probation by being out of state, authorities knew Philadelphia police suspected him in the murder of his mother in February.
Gibson’s probation officer had initially wanted him back behind bars for six-and-a-half years. That’s the time left on the 20-year sentence he received in 2010 for manslaughter and a weapons count before being put on probation in 2020.
But after a debate in court this spring, Gibson was released from custody on April 27.
Since regaining his freedom, Gibson is suspected of committing three more killings, according to Philadelphia police. And on Wednesday, Philadelphia authorities approved a murder charge against Gibson in the death of his mother, 54-year-old Christine Gibson, at her home.
The story of how Gibson escaped a lengthy prison term two months ago is revealed in documents obtained by WHYY News, including his probation report and transcripts of two hearings before Superior Court Judge Vivian L. Medinilla.
Superior Court Judge Vivian L Medinilla, formerly Vivian Rapposelli. Click to enlarge.
Remember that name: Superior Court Judge Vivian L. Medinilla.
Delaware probation officials initially asked for Mr Gibson to be returned to prison to serve out the remainder of his sentence, which would have been 6½ years. Had Judge Medinilla ordered that, Mr Gibson would have been where he belonged, behind bars, on the morning Miss Lugo was murdered.
Instead, at a second hearing, state probation officials changed their recommendation to thirty days.
Asked why the recommendation was lowered, Department of Correction Commissioner Claire DeMatteis told WHYY the case is yet another in a troubling “pattern” of judges and defense attorneys pushing back on probation officers who seek “hard jail time” for violent offenders who violate the terms of their release.
I get it: defense attorneys are always going to be “pushing back” on probation officers trying to put their clients back behind bars; that’s what defense attorneys do, they try to defend their clients.
But judges pushing back? Judges should look at every case impartially, and not be “pushing back” against incarcerating violent offenders. Here’s a kicker:
Medinilla told the parties she would not consider the Philadelphia murder investigation in her deliberations. She also said she could sentence Gibson that day but was going to “defer” to give (Meghan) Crist (Mr Gibson’s public defender) and (Larry S) Charles (Mr Gibson’s probation officer) time to speak about “a proper consideration of the sentence.”
Mr Charles had prepared a report on Mr Gibson, trying to get him put back behind bars. WHYY said that his report included:
- Philadelphia police had told him Gibson was the “prime suspect” in his mother’s killing. Charles wrote that “early reports suggest Mr. Gibson’s mother informed numerous friends and family members if something were to happen to me, her son would be the one responsible.”
- Gibson’s “extensive history of violence’’ and “documented anger issues,” including 64 previous criminal charges, with nine convictions for felonies and 15 for misdemeanors. Besides the manslaughter/weapons conviction, which had been pleaded down from a first-degree murder count, his other offenses included assault and terroristic threatening.
- He had also violated probation 14 times over the years.
But Judge Medinilla told Mr Charles that she would not consider the Philadelphia Police Department’s concerns that Mr Gibson was a murder suspect in Pennsylvania. Is it any wonder that, two weeks later, when the Judge was to consider putting Mr Gibson back behind bars, Mr Charles recommendation changed? He already knew that the judge was going to be soft-hearted and soft-headed. Why else would she have released a man who could legitimately be locked up on probation violations when that man was suspected of murder, the murder of his own mother?
She noted that while Charles was seeking “a significant amount” of prison time, “I’ll give you an opportunity to consider that and look to determine whether that’s an appropriate sanction in light of the finding that Mr. Gibson was in violation only to the extent that he was in Pennsylvania instead of here in Delaware.”
There’s a lot more at the original, but one thing stands out to me: Judge Medinilla handcuffed Mr Charles by refusing to consider the report from Philadelphia, and she released Mr Gibson that day — he was sentenced to 30 days, but, by the time of the second hearing, he had already served that — and while the probation officer might have done more, the blame for this belongs squarely on Judge Medinilla. Assuming that Mr Gibson is the man person who murdered Miss Lugo, and the others he is suspected of killing, Judge Medinilla is just as responsible for those killings as Mr Gibson.
Will Judge Medinilla be held accountable for her actions? No, of course not, she is legally immune from the consequences of her decisions.
There was no need for Judge Medinilla to let Mr Gibson loose. He was already guilty of violating his probation, and she could have ordered him back to jail without the state having to prove anything else; no trial was required. With the Philly police already pointing to him as a murder suspect, why would any judge in his right mind turn him loose when it was not necessary?
It wasn’t even necessary to lock up Mr Gibson for the 6½ years Mr Charles originally sought. She could have ordered him back to prison for six months, or a year, to give Philadelphia Police more time to make their case against him for the killing of his mother. Even just that much, and several people who are now stone-cold graveyard dead would (allegedly) be alive today.
But no, she couldn’t do even that much. I know, I know: we cannot prosecute Judge Medinilla for her incredibly poor judgement, but at least she can be publicly shamed for it. How else can she be held accountable?
The story concluded by saying that there was no other information available, but, of course there was; there was the suspect’s mugshot, which WKYT-TV published at 9:58 AM, 2½ hours before the Herald-Leader story was written. But we all know that publishing the suspect’s mugshot would violate McClatchy Mugshot Policy. 
