Summary of The Buried Bodies Case

Overview of The Buried Bodies Case

This Radiolab episode revisits one of the most famous and unsettling legal ethics cases in U.S. law: a brutal murder investigation in upstate New York that turned into a debate about attorney-client privilege, moral duty, and whether a defense lawyer’s loyalty to a client can override the needs of victims’ families. What begins like a true-crime manhunt becomes a larger story about what lawyers owe their clients, the justice system, and their own consciences.

The Crime and Manhunt

The Adirondacks attack

• In July 1973, four young campers in the Adirondacks were approached by a man posing as a conservation officer.
• He forced them to strip down, tie themselves to trees, and then stabbed 18-year-old Philip Domblowski to death.
• Three others escaped; one was briefly held, then freed.
• The attack triggered a massive manhunt, reportedly the largest in New York state history at the time.

Robert Garrow is captured

• Police identified the suspect as Robert Garrow, a 37-year-old ex-convict with a violent criminal history.
• After nearly two weeks on the run, he was shot and captured by a conservation officer, Hillary LeBlanc.
• While hospitalized, Garrow was guarded closely, and police believed he may also know the locations of other missing girls.

The Legal and Moral Conflict

Frank Armani becomes Garrow’s lawyer

• Attorney Frank Armani was appointed to represent Garrow because Garrow insisted on speaking only with him.
• Armani, who had never handled a major murder case, brought in experienced defense lawyer Francis Belge as co-counsel.

Garrow confesses

• In private meetings, Garrow admitted to killing Domblowski and other victims.
• He also described the disappearances of two missing girls:
  • Susan Petz
  • Alicia Houck
• Garrow told the lawyers where the bodies were buried.

The central dilemma

• The lawyers faced a devastating conflict:
  • If they revealed the information, they could help grieving families and police.
  • If they kept it secret, they would honor attorney-client confidentiality and protect their client’s defense.
• They believed the law required secrecy unless there was an ongoing or future harm to prevent.
• Their goal became to negotiate a plea that would send Garrow to a mental institution rather than prison.

The Search for the Bodies

• Armani and Belge tried to use the information as leverage in a plea bargain with prosecutors.
• When that failed, they went out themselves to verify Garrow’s account.
• They found one victim in an abandoned mine shaft and later the other in a cemetery.
• Even after confirming the bodies, they still did not disclose the information to authorities immediately.

Trial, Exposure, and Backlash

Garrow’s conviction

• Garrow later went on trial and was convicted of murder.
• He received the maximum sentence: 25 years to life.

Public outrage

• The revelation that the defense lawyers had known where the bodies were, but had not told anyone, sparked outrage.
• They were denounced in the press and received threats.
• Authorities considered criminal charges and ethics complaints against them.

Ultimately cleared

• The criminal charges were dropped and the ethics complaints dismissed.
• The legal system effectively concluded that Armani and Belge had acted within their professional obligations, even if many people found their conduct morally shocking.

Why This Case Matters

A landmark in legal ethics

This case is widely taught in law schools because it forces students to confront a hard truth: good lawyering and popular morality do not always line up.

Core questions it raises

• Is a defense lawyer morally responsible for a client’s crimes?
• Should attorney-client privilege ever yield when it could help victims’ families?
• What does loyalty mean inside an adversarial justice system?
• Can someone be ethically right by the rules and still feel deeply wrong?

The Victims’ Families’ Perspective

The episode gives special weight to the pain of Susan Petz’s mother, Roberta Petz, who says she had no idea the case was being taught in law schools and finds the lesson horrifying.

Her central point:

• The lawyers’ secrecy prolonged her family’s agony.
• The victims’ suffering should have mattered at least as much as the defendant’s rights.
• She rejects the idea that this is an ethical model worth celebrating.

Key Takeaways

• The episode is less about crime than about professional responsibility under extreme pressure.
• It shows how attorney-client privilege can become morally agonizing when it conflicts with human suffering.
• Armani and Belge are presented as lawyers who followed the rules, but at enormous personal and emotional cost.
• The story remains a touchstone in legal education because it captures the tension between legal duty, human compassion, and justice.

Notable Themes

• Loyalty vs. conscience
• Confidentiality vs. truth
• The role morality of lawyers
• Victim dignity and family grief
• Whether doing “the right legal thing” is always the right human thing