Complete With Torture, Amputee Porn and Batman, Hotel Heir Murder Trial Set for This Month

April 2, 2012 Brooklyn Eagle Staff

ben_and%20narcy%20novack.jpg

ben_and%20narcy%20novack.jpg

Share this:

Suspects’ ‘Chats’ Admissible, While Brooklyn Man Misidentifies Police

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — A Florida woman’s “chatty” statements to police after the killing of her millionaire husband were voluntary and can be used as evidence at her murder trial, a judge has ruled, despite her claims that police made her talk.

Some of the statements by Narcy Novack, of Fort Lauderdale, will be admissible only if she takes the witness stand, the judge said.

Novack, 54, and her brother, Cristobal Veliz, of Brooklyn, are accused of arranging the 2009 killing of Ben Novack Jr., son of the man who built the famous Fontainebleau hotel in Miami Beach. They are also charged in the killing earlier that year of Ben Novack’s mother, Bernice Novack.

If convicted of murder in aid of racketeering, they could be sent to prison for life.

The last court hearing concerned only the killing of Ben Novack, who was beaten to death and tortured in his hotel room in suburban Rye Brook, N.Y., where his company has ordered an Amway convention. The man who owned the world’s second-largest collection of Batman memorabilia, which is worth a fortune, even had his eyelids slit.

The prosecution claims Novack made false statements about some evidence found at the murder scene, and her lawyer, Howard Tanner, wanted to keep the jury from seeing any of the three days of recorded questioning.

Novack testified two weeks ago that her statements were pressured rather than voluntary. She claimed she never got food or bathroom breaks and felt she had “no choice” but to submit to questioning. She said she often felt suicidal.

But Judge Kenneth Karas said Friday that Novack hadn’t been arrested, restrained or searched during the questioning and the video recording “makes it crystal clear that she knows she’s free to leave, that she can get a lawyer.”

“She appears to be relaxed and quite chatty,” he added, noting that Novack discussed “some remarkably intimate details” of her sex life.

The judge also said, “Watching the video, I didn’t come away with the idea she’s suicidal.” He said Novack was being “melodramatic” when she said the electric chair would put her out of her misery.

The judge said Novack wasn’t in custody during the first questioning session and wasn’t entitled to be read her Miranda rights. The prosecution concedes, however, that Novack was technically in custody during a second session, so her statements from that questioning can be introduced only if she testifies.

The judge also ruled that police questioning of Veliz was admissible, saying it, too, was voluntary and Veliz’s rights were not violated.

On a separate issue, Novack’s attorney, Howard Tanner, complained that he should have been told before this month that in 2010 a detective on the case gave $5,000 to Novack’s daughter. The daughter, May Abad, is expected to be a key prosecution witness.

Tanner said the information supports his theory that “this was a flawed and biased investigation from the start.”

Prosecutors disclosed March 12 that Westchester County police Detective Alison Carpentier gave Abad $5,000 to help her move after she expressed fear for her safety.

Prosecutor Elliott Jacobson said an informant had reported that family members tried to assault Abad and tried to frame her by planting guns and drugs in her truck.

Before the government could obtain funds to help Abad move, Westchester County police Detective Alison Carpentier, “who was very much concerned about Abad’s security,” gave Abad $5,000 of her own money, the prosecutor said.

He did not say whether the detective was paid back, by the government or by Abad.

Tanner said even if it was true that Abad felt threatened, “There are appropriate ways for witnesses generally to obtain assistance, especially in a high-profile case like this, other than having a detective involved in the case give money from her own personal funds to a potential witness to a homicide.”

Tanner said he had heard that Carpentier lost her job after giving Abad the money, but when he asked the prosecution for more information, he said, he was told to “take a hike.”

Jacobson responded in court that the police commissioner told him Carpentier was taken off the case but not disciplined or fired. She then retired, he said.

Tanner expressed doubt about that, and the judge assured him that he’s entitled to any documents about how the Carpentier incident was handled by the county and by federal prosecutors.

Jacobson also wrote that before Narcy Novack was arrested, Abad filed a lawsuit to block her from inheriting Ben Novack’s $10 million estate. She sued because she suspected her mother’s involvement in the killing and knew that she had failed a lie detector test, the prosecutor said.

He told the judge that if defense lawyers try to suggest that the lawsuit shows Abad was involved in the killing, the prosecution should be allowed to mention the polygraph.

Jacobson also asked the judge not to admit as evidence pictures of nude female amputees that were found on Ben Novack’s computer.

Although the prosecution plans to say — as evidence of motive — that Narcy Novack told police her husband had a fetish, “whether he in fact had such a fetish is not an appropriate issue for the jury to consider,” Jacobson wrote.

When Novack took the witness stand last month in an orange prison jumpsuit and insisted that her statements to police over three days of questioning were involuntary, it came as a shock to the courtroom that she would testify.

The surprise testimony of Novack came during a federal court hearing about what evidence will be allowed at her trial this month.

Novack’s testimony followed that of Edward Murphy, senior investigator for the Westchester County district attorney’s office.

He testified that Novack was being questioned as a witness rather than a suspect and was “very agreeable. … anything she could do to help.”

He said the questioning was “casual, low key, amiable” at the start but became more confrontational.

Murphy also testified about questioning Veliz. But when Veliz took the stand, he confused the courtroom by repeatedly claiming that the “Ed Murphy” who questioned him was not the investigator who testified. “He looked different,” the Brooklyn man said.

Veliz also claimed that investigators who came to his apartment entered and searched it without his permission.

Leave a Comment

Click here to cancel reply.