Killer Serving Life for Brutal Murder Demands Freedom with New Claims
Jeremy Motyka, now 50 years old, is making a shocking bid for freedom nearly 27 years after the brutal rape and murder of a beloved grandmother. Motyka was sentenced to life without parole in 2001 for the first-degree murder and first-degree sexual assault of 66-year-old Angela Spence-Shaw, whose battered body was discovered in the bathtub of her Little Compton, Rhode Island home in May 1999.
The Horrific Crime That Shook a Community
The crime, which occurred over Memorial Day weekend in 1999, marked the first murder in Little Compton in fifty years. Angela Spence-Shaw was found by a friend on May 30 after she failed to appear for her job at Peckham's Greenhouse. An autopsy report revealed she died from multiple blunt-force injuries and drowning, suggesting she was likely alive when her attacker forced her into the bath.
The scene was particularly disturbing: investigators found the grandmother had been raped, beaten, and left submerged in her bath with a plugged-in hairdryer. At the time of her death, Motyka was part of a construction crew renovating her home, placing him in proximity to the victim.
Community Mourning and Legal Proceedings
Angela Spence-Shaw was a cherished member of her community. Just days before her murder, she had filled window boxes at the community centre with flowers and was due to take over as president of the Little Compton Garden Club. Her death prompted an outpouring of grief, with more than 300 residents gathering for a memorial service about a week after her body was discovered.
Motyka was convicted based on DNA evidence that authorities said matched his blood sample to semen found at the crime scene. During sentencing, Superior Court Judge O Rogeriee Thompson characterised Motyka as the "personification of evil" and stated, "The evil that happened in this case has the face of an angel."
New Claims and Legal Challenges
Now, Motyka is seeking post-conviction relief with a range of arguments centred on claims of police misconduct and inadequate legal representation. His key assertions include:
- Police planted DNA evidence that was later transferred to the lab
- His trial lawyer, Michael DiLauro, failed to hire expert witnesses to challenge the time of death
- Fingerprints found at the scene, including one on a door in Angela's blood, could not be linked to him
- DNA evidence was mishandled and contaminated by detectives
- Other "exculpatory DNA evidence went missing from the rape kit"
Motyka maintains he has an alibi for the period between 8:30am on May 29, 1999, and 1:30am the following morning—the timeframe in which Angela is believed to have been killed. He also notes that police documented he had no injuries shortly after the murder, despite evidence that Angela fought back against her attacker in what was described as a brutal fight at a bloody crime scene.
Current Legal Status and Official Responses
Motyka's latest legal arguments were presented earlier this month in Washington County Superior Court, where a judge has asked both sides to submit written legal arguments for review this spring. This follows a 2017 Rhode Island Supreme Court ruling that determined Motyka was entitled to an evidentiary hearing after an earlier request for post-conviction relief was denied without being heard.
The Rhode Island Attorney General's Office has responded to Motyka's claims, stating that while he is entitled to a hearing, "The state is confident that after an evidentiary hearing on the post-conviction relief matter, the Superior Court will dismiss the petition as meritless." State prosecutors argue that Motyka has presented no new evidence and is attempting to relitigate facts already decided by a jury.
Motyka's former lawyer, Michael DiLauro, has told the court that the defence was not provided with all necessary information to properly represent him during the original trial. Motyka, who is serving his life sentence in a maximum security unit, has also alleged prosecutorial misconduct and claimed the judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury.
As the legal process continues, this case remains a stark reminder of a horrific crime that devastated a small community, while raising complex questions about evidence, legal representation, and the pursuit of justice decades after a conviction.
