|
||||||||
|
Murder trial starts today for Springer show guest
By ALICIA CALDWELL
In fact, they were fodder for a talk show episode. Hours after a segment about a volatile Sarasota love triangle aired on the Jerry Springer Show, one of the women involved was strangled, authorities charge, by another guest on the show: her ex-husband, a pony-tailed ne'er-do-well with a penchant for older women. It doesn't get a lot uglier than the state of Florida vs. Ralf Panitz. Unless, of course, you tuned in to the July 24, 2000, show -- a classic example of ambush TV, which emerged in the 1990s as a commercially viable genre. That it sells is not an issue. But it raises, yet again, the question of what responsibility purveyors of such shows have for the havoc that follows a staged confrontation between explosive personalities. "Obviously, nobody learned anything from the Jenny Jones killing," said John Parsons, a New York-based independent producer who did a documentary for HBO about talk show abuses. "You can't put unstable personalities on television and embarrass them and assault them and not expect an emotional, violent response." Whether the highly rated television show becomes an issue at the murder trial, or the subject of a civil suit like the one filed against the Jenny Jones show after a guest was murdered, are unanswered questions at this point. But there are indications that Sarasota will experience something of a shock TV redux: The lawyer defending 42-year-old Ralf Panitz certainly knows how to pitch a sound bite. Geoffrey Fieger has represented suicide doctor Jack Kevorkian, and he won a $25-million judgment for the family of a gay man slain by a fellow guest three days after the taping of a Jenny Jones show about same-sex secret crushes. When asked whether he planned to call Springer, who has a house in Sarasota, to testify in the murder trial, Fieger dodged the question with what was probably -- though who could tell -- a joke. "I'm going to have (Springer) wrestled to the ground by two naked women," Fieger said. "Print that." Talk aside, the Panitz court file paints a picture of a manipulative man who lured his ex-wife onto the Springer show -- with kisses and talk of reconciliation -- only to humiliate her on national television. A surprise onstageNancy Campbell-Panitz said she thought Panitz, a German citizen a decade younger, was using the show to come up with a free airline ticket and a path back to her. Campbell-Panitz detailed the sorry story to a judge hours before she would die. She was asking for a restraining order to keep him away. "We could go on the show, they would pay his ticket and then we'd rent a car and drive to Tennessee and get remarried and come to Florida and live again. And so I went on the show to show him how much I loved him because we were -- we've been talking about getting back together for a year." But when the taping began, on her birthday in May, she realized the show was much different than what she had been led to believe. Called "Secret Mistresses Confronted," she found herself facing her ex-husband and his new wife. Panitz, 6 feet 3 and full of verve, bounded on stage, kissed each woman, and the twisted confrontation began. This exchange comes from a video clip of the show, posted on the Web site of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Springer: What's going on here? Panitz: Yes, I had sex with my ex-wife yesterday, but I did that to keep her illusioned. I still love her but . . . (audience boos) Springer: Why? Why is it important to keep an illusion that you love her if you don't? Panitz: I wanted Nancy to go on the show. . . . A month ago I married Elli. I do love Eleanor. But (he looks to Nancy) I care for you and don't wish you any harm. I just wanted you to know. Please, let me go on with my life. Predictably, things got worse from there. Panitz's new wife called Campbell-Panitz old and fat. Springer said, "He's telling you he doesn't want to be with you." With that, she said goodbye and walked off the set. In the next month, despite Campbell-Panitz's allegations that Panitz previously had kicked her in the stomach, given her a concussion and choked her, she moved in with him. She loaned him $4,000 and wrote a $5,000 check for a house they took on together in a lease/option deal. On July 10, two weeks before Campbell-Panitz was found dead, Panitz brought his new wife to the house. It appeared to be the last straw for Campbell-Panitz. "He's taken advantage of me and taken my entire life savings," she told a judge on the day she died. "And I would like my home returned to me, and I'd like to be apart from him forever." Though she got the restraining order and exclusive use of the house, authorities allege that Panitz, his nephew and his new wife went to the house that evening to pick up some belongings. While they were there, Campbell-Panitz arrived with a sheriff's deputy. Prosecutors contend that Panitz got out of the house through a window without the deputy knowing. The wife and nephew left. Shortly thereafter, Eleanor Panitz, the new wife, told the nephew that Panitz was going back to the house to kill Campbell-Panitz, according to court records. The nephew called police, who found Campbell-Panitz dead in her home about 6:30 p.m. Expecting a spectacleCourt records hint of the detail that may come out at trial: A pizza parlor waitress overheard Panitz and his wife talk about their desire to kill Campbell-Panitz; a neighbor overheard someone saying "Don't do it"; and a male voice with a German accent was heard in Campbell-Panitz's house around the time of the killing. The trial is expected to last two weeks, though there is a possibility it will be delayed after jury selection. Circuit Judge Nancy Donnellan said she will hold a hearing once jurors are chosen to rule on a prosecution request for more time to question potential witnesses. Dozens of local people -- deputies, evidence technicians and neighbors -- have been subpoenaed. Experts from around the country are on the witness lists. Although Panitz has been indicted for first-degree murder, prosecutors have said they are not seeking the death penalty. Nevertheless, the high-profile case has drawn the attention of Court TV, which is expected to broadcast the trial, said Tom Bell, court media representative for Sarasota County courts. Although Springer was not listed in court-filed witness lists last week, locals expect something of a spectacle surrounding the trial. "Everyone's anticipating Jerry Springer driving up in his Rolls Royce," Bell said. Thus far, Springer and his representatives have said little about the case. Last week, the show released a statement saying: "The Jerry Springer Show and its producers continue to be sympathetic to those who have been affected by this terrible tragedy. Our prayers go out to the family of the victim." Those who study television ethics believe talk shows need to be more than sympathetic. "They certainly have to have some responsibility," said Stuart Fischoff, a media psychology professor at California State University at Los Angeles. "It's not as if someone who was a total choir boy broke loose from his psychic moorings and committed a heinous crime." Robert Thompson, a media and popular culture professor at Syracuse University, said it's a situation unlikely to change until people stop tuning in. "The very premise behind these shows is like taking a jar of nitroglycerin and pushing it to the edge of the table and starting the cameras to see if it gets knocked off and blows," Thompson said. "The bottom line is whether the stuff delivers the numbers. If it does, then they'll keep doing it." -- Times researcher Cathy Wos contributed to this report.
© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727-893-8111
|
From the Times state desk
From the state wire
|
![]()