Updated 5/21/2023
20/20 recently aired an episode about the case. The producers used heavy-handed tactics to try to get family members to go on camera. These tactics ultimately alienated the victim’s family, law enforcement, and several of Andrea’s friends. Even Chris Johnson’s lead defense attorney did not appear on camera. As a result, the episode was rather one-sided, centered around the perspective of Chris Johnson. The episode propagated a myth that some of Andrea’s friends and family have referred to as “the big lie.”
Here are some questions and answers regarding specific content or implications presented in the episode.
- What is “the big lie”?
“The big lie” refers to the claim that the only substantive evidence against Chris Johnson is the word of Bobby Leonard. This myth is thoroughly debunked throughout this website, but it played a central role in the 20/20 episode. Johnson’s lawyers tried and failed three times to get his indictment dismissed. The final time was during their Motion to Strike. Even the trial judge realized that there was significant evidence against Johnson, beyond Leonard’s testimony. The transcript excerpt below is from the judge’s ruling, denying the Motion to Strike.
The judge correctly notes that the closet door was ajar (with Andrea’s dead body inside) and that Johnson was in and out of the bedroom multiple times, but apparently did not notice. She also cited cleanup evidence: “they…are facts that…indicate that a juror could find that Mr. Johnson was involved in cleaning up the scene afterwards.”
There is more evidence than this, of course, but it is noteworthy that 20/20 seems to have characterized the totality of the evidence against Johnson differently than The Court did. Additional evidence includes:
- The highly specific way in which Johnson and Leonard’s understanding of Andrea’s timeline for that day appear to match;
- Inconsistent statements made by Johnson regarding his knowledge of and/or contact with Leonard in the days leading up to the murder, and the extent to which he cleaned up on the evening of the murder;
- Fingerprint evidence that is consistent with cleanup; and
- The fact that Johnson called the number he was given by an undercover police officer, as a number with which to arrange payment to Leonard.
- The elements of Johnson’s Vision Statement that are corroborated, and could go to motive.
- The shoeprint on Andrea Cincotta’s body which, according to the crime lab report, likely matches Chris Johnson’s shoe.
the trial judge denies johnson’s “motion to strike,” citing evidence beyond leonard’s testimony
- Did Chris Johnson tell police, family members, or the private investigator that Andrea had said she might not be home that night, because she might be at friend Judy Taylor’s residence?
No family member remembers him doing so. As one can see in the Root Beer Statement and hear in the answering machine messages, he makes no mention of that. But he now claims that was part of his thought process. His stated thought process at the time was that Andrea was supposed to go to work for a couple of hours, then be home at about 1pm (the exact time Leonard says the caller gave him), then the two were to watch a video or go to the movies. But he never called her work to see if she made it there, or left there, and then proceeded with the evening based on an assumption that the impossible occurred: Andrea played a message on an unplayed answering machine, then left for the Taylors’ (without telling him or leaving a note) based on a message she couldn’t have played.
- Did Chris Johnson call the Taylor residence that evening, stating that he was looking for Andrea, or asking if she was there?
No. According to his own legal filings, his message simply said, “It’s Chris, from Andy and Chris, give me a call,” or words to that effect. He never inquired as to whether Andrea was there, or asked if they’d seen her.
- Did Bobby Leonard receive any benefit in exchange for his testimony at trial?
Absolutely not. The idea that Leonard confessed to avoid the death penalty is silly: he could have avoided the death penalty, and any other punishment for this crime, by simply not confessing. In addition, there was no death penalty in Virginia at the time of trial–or even at the time of the Grand Jury, when Leonard initially testified. The preceding link provides comprehensive information on this topic, but Leonard ended up worse off.
Leonard got no benefit by implicating Johnson (and himself). There is no prison transfer and he remains at Wallens Ridge. However, Leonard destroyed his eligibility for future geriatric parole and prison transfers with a new Class 1 felony conviction.
- Didn’t Bobby Leonard at least think he was getting a benefit, based on the call he made to his girlfriend?
It’s impossible to know for sure what Leonard thought. But the call that was played on television appears to be part of a long pattern, during which he would “string along” his girlfriend to keep her hopes up that he might be released from prison. In the call, he references “the Governor of Virginia” and other individuals not involved in this case. There is no evidence that the call has any connection to this case.
- Did Bobby Leonard delay the trial for one hour, insisting on a concession, whereby he’d get a transfer to a lower security prison?
No. He requested that authorities make a non-binding call to the Virginia Department of Corrections urging them to expedite a transfer for which he said he’d already been approved. Authorities agreed that they would investigate, and only do so if he was otherwise eligible for the transfer. Based on his recent felony conviction in this same case, it appears that he was not eligible. Therefore, our understanding is that they did not make even a non-binding phone call. Leonard testified anyway. Then, at sentencing, Leonard made clear to the judge that he requested nothing in terms of a lighter sentence, and he ultimately received the maximum sentence allowable by law—the same maximum sentence he would have received with no agreement at all. In any case, he ended up worse off, not better off, but testified against Johnson anyway, and maintains his statements to this day.
He remains at Wallens Ridge State Prison, a maximum/super-maximum security facility, with no near-term eligibility for consideration for transfer to a lower security facility. That’s right–he didn’t get a transfer, or any other benefit. You can verify this information for yourself here. Leonard’s OffenderID is 1089002.
- Did crime scene responders’ use of superglue on the body compromise the recovery of physical evidence?
Supergluing a body is more commonly called fuming. It’s a common and generally recommended technique for non-porous surfaces. A paid defense expert testified to this fact, and repeated it on 20/20. The expert was critical of the authorities’ use of the substance on the body. It’s arguable whether the use of superglue helped or hurt in extracting latent prints from the body, but there appears to be general consensus that the technique is helpful, and therefore should have been highly effective, for the over 600 non-porous samples in the residence from which samples for latent fingerprints were taken. Which is why it’s remarkable that Andrea Cincotta, who had lived there for seven years, had not a single fingerprint in her own residence.
There was no physical evidence in the condo tying Leonard to the crime, but Johnson spent 7.5 hours in that condo after Leonard left. Police erred by not arresting Leonard in 1998. But if the crime scene showed evidence of thorough cleaning, where was it appropriate for police to focus?
In addition, the difference in appearance between the scene that Leonard testified to leaving (and that is typical for a crime scene), and the scene that Johnson said he came to (and was photographed) could be suggestive that the scene was altered.
Why did Andrea Cincotta not have a single fingerprint in the residence in which she lived for seven years–not even on the vacuum cleaner she used every weekend–the one Johnson used after the murder? Why does the photographed crime scene look so unusually clean–and so different from the scene that the confessed-killer admitted to leaving?
The use of superglue on the body would not affect conclusions about the general appearance of the scene, nor the existence of fingerprints elsewhere in the residence.
- If Chris Johnson and Andrea Cincotta got engaged in the summer of 1991, why were they still unmarried in August 1998?
Because they didn’t have a firm wedding date. Johnson proposed during a trip that the couple took to Europe in the summer of 1991, but Andrea wanted to delay getting married for an extended period. Johnson had bought matching gold wedding bands. Andrea stated that they could simply say that they are engaged, without a plan to actually marry in the near future, and put the rings aside. The couple didn’t wear rings, and the matching wedding bands were kept on the shelves directly above the computer. These are the shelves from which Johnson claimed rolled and loose coins were taken, but crime scene photos show rolled and loose coins still on the shelves. Johnson told the victim’s family that the matching wedding bands, as well as other family jewelry that Andrea had inherited from her parents, were missing. But he never reported any jewelry missing to police, and Leonard never mentioned finding jewelry. To date, neither the jewelry, nor Andrea’s will, nor the piece of paper with Leonard’s number (Johnson admits to throwing out several file folders of “old papers” that night and says Andrea gave him the number) have been recovered. If you have information about the missing jewelry, missing will, or missing piece of paper, please contact Arlington County Police Crime Solvers at 1-866-411-TIPS.
- What did 20/20 omit about the police stings against Johnson?
They omitted that Johnson accepted the number that he was given as a number with which to arrange payment to Leonard, then called it, and apparently, told nobody about it–until confronted a second time. You can hear in the audio that Johnson does not seem surprised that a relative of Leonard is asking him for money. Rather, he accepts the number from the woman, then calls the number. He never reports this interaction to the victim’s family, never tells the person that he believes Leonard killed his fiancee, or reports the interaction to Arlington police. In other words, when confronted with two options (either the person he believes killed his fiance has sent his family to shake him down for money, or it’s an undercover police operation), he chooses not to tell anyone actually investigating the case–but to instead call the number. You will also hear the concern he expresses to the undercover officer: “Where is Bobby now?”
Johnson called the number he was given as the number with which to arrange payment to Leonard.
- Is there substantive evidence relevant to Chris Johnson beyond Leonard’s word?
Yes. For example, Leonard knew highly specific information about Andrea’s schedule that day—information that only became “known” earlier that week. We say “known” in quotes because the information was slightly inaccurate. But Johnson gave police his account of her schedule that day—providing the same information, with the same slight inaccuracy. The two mens’ timelines for when she’d be home that day match to the minute. Meanwhile, both men acknowledged, or appear to have acknowledged, speaking on the phone in the days leading up to the murder, even in 1998. Johnson told police that Andrea gave him the number, and we know that the piece of paper with Leonard’s phone number also had his name. But Johnson told the victim’s family that he didn’t know the “computer guy’s” name. The family had to hire a private investigator to look for the “computer guy,” and didn’t find Leonard until two years later. In June 2000, when Johnson was told the identity of the computer guy, he again did not mention having been asked to call the man–or knowing anything about him prior to June 2000.
Johnson admits to Chief Penn that Andrea asked him to contact Leonard in the days leading up to the murder, contradicting his attorneys’ claims that “There was no phone call,” and his statements to family members who were searching for “the computer guy” at the time. His statement also appears to corroborate Leonard’s 1998 description of a similar phone call. Although Johnson claimed that he “never saw the piece of paper” with Leonard’s name and number, he correctly recited the first three digits of the phone number to Penn.
This table also shows that Johnson began introducing his “dream/vision,” about an argument centered around his now-corroborated secret pornography use and expenditures (and misuse of beach house funds), much earlier in the sequence than depicted on 20/20. In fact, he repeated or introduced some of these statements to family members outside of police presence, including as early as 8/22.
11. But didn’t Johnson identify Leonard as a possible suspect to police? It doesn’t make sense that someone would point the police toward the person they hired.
There’s no evidence of this in the police file. Johnson doesn’t mention Leonard or “a computer guy” at any point in his video-recorded questioning. The only reference Johnson makes to the individual that we’ve found is the one described above–where he is asked who has accessed the apartment in the past few weeks. That’s when he admits that Andrea gave him the number and asked him to call the man, and correctly recites the first three digits of the man’s phone number. There is no record that Johnson ever identified Leonard/”the computer guy” as a suspect or potential person of interest to police. To the contrary, it appears that multiple people (but not Johnson) who knew about the computer exchange immediately mentioned the “computer guy” as a suspect, including the victim’s son, Andrea’s swimming friend, and at least one of her co-workers.
It appears that, in general, those who knew about the computer exchange immediately identified “the computer guy” as a suspect to police–except Johnson. But Johnson told police he had been asked to call the man in the days leading up to the murder, and correctly recited the first part of the phone number, even as he told family members he “never saw the piece of paper” with the phone number.
In addition, although Johnson was present when Andrea told family members the name of the company for which “the computer guy” worked (TrashMasters), he did not mention that information to police. Instead, the victim’s family spent thousands of dollars on lawyers and private investigators to locate the man, and found him only two years later (in June 2000)–relying on information that Johnson is known to have heard, but claimed to have forgotten.
12. Was Johnson’s “Vision Statement” a “false confession” that occurred only after 26 hours of interviews over four days, and did it play a role the decision to charge him? Was the 20/20 presentation of the chronology accurate?
The answer to all four questions is No. Johnson’s statement wasn’t a confession, because he never stated that he killed Andrea directly. Instead, he described an argument he had with Andrea that is consistent with other evidence of a build-up prior to the murder. It’s also not entirely false, as several elements in it are now corroborated as true. This is probably why Johnson’s own defense attorneys tried (but failed) to suppress the statement altogether.
Johnson was presumably charged not based on his 1998 statement, but based on Leonard’s confession 20 years later, and the fact that unrelated statements Johnson made appeared to support Leonard’s claims–and that Leonard knew information he could apparently only have known from Johnson. It’s also possible that Johnson was charged, in part, because of evidence that the crime scene had been thoroughly cleaned, so that it looked much different than Leonard described leaving it.
20/20 presented Johnson’s “Vision Statement” as a singular event, at the end of four days of intense questioning. The truth is that were multiple vision statements or suggestions by Johnson that he may have been involved, and they started earlier in the process.
However, what’s most problematic for the 20/20 narrative on this topic is that its chronology is wrong: Johnson was lapsing in and out of his “vision” at least a full day before the end of his interviews on the evening of 8/24. He made similar statement to family members when not in police presence, and introduced “vision statement” elements to police at least early as 8/23. One such example is below.
Supplemental Report of Detective Stuart Chase shows Johnson introducing “vision statement” elements to investigators on August 23rd at 5:15pm–at least 24 hours prior to what was depicted on 20/20.
13. Why didn’t Leonard seek the $5,000 that he states that Johnson promised him?
It’s impossible to know Leonard’s thought process, but we know that it would not have been reasonably possible for Leonard to seek the money. Leonard didn’t know the proper name of Andrea’s boyfriend, and was locked up in Philadelphia on unrelated charges a few days later. While he was in custody, detectives questioned him aggressively, making it clear that he was a suspect in the case. Shortly after Leonard returned to Arlington, he was polygraphed. Leonard stated that he knew, at that point, that he could never go back to the crime scene without drawing suspicion to himself. Had he done so, it would have been pointless: the condo was sealed off as a crime scene. After that, Johnson moved out, and had a different (landline) phone number. Therefore, there is no obvious way that Leonard could have attempted to track down the caller.
About 10 months after that, Leonard was detained–ultimately receiving his first life sentence–which eliminated any chance he had to track down the man.
Leonard told police that, had he not been a suspect in the case, and had he been able to locate the caller, he “would have killed him.”
14. In the Holmes video, Johnson states that based on the information he’s been given, he can “draw no other conclusion” that he was involved and must have put Andrea in the closet. Is this a reasonable inference? Are Johnson’s statements otherwise generally consistent?
No. In the video, Johnson attributes to police only two false statements: that his fingerprints were on Andrea’s neck, and that Andrea was alive at 6pm. (In 2018, Johnson attributed two other false statements to police: that a scar on his hand matched a print on Andrea’s neck, and that his shoeprint was found on her body. A forensics report indicates that the shoeprint-related claim was accurate). Two of these items are explained, because Johnson claimed that he gave her a massage that morning.
This leaves only the false statement that Andrea was alive at 6pm. If one in Johnson’s position truly accepted that premise, and he found her dead in the closet at approximately 1:30am, and didn’t interact with her in the interim, the only logical inference is that she died in the closet at some point between 6pm and 1:30am. An appropriate reaction might then be regret that he didn’t notice or think to open the closet door sooner–as he might have then been able to give her medical assistance or even save her life. It’s certainly not a valid inference to conclude that he himself put her in the closet.
In addition, as described in #12 above, Johnson made a similar “vision statement” at least 24 hours earlier, and told the victim’s family he may have been involved (“They keep saying I was there…and maybe I was there“) more than 24 hours before that. Yet, just prior to that interaction, according to the police file, Johnson told Andrea’s father that all signs point to a “natural” death. This was after he had found Andrea’s body stuffed in a closet, with a blood-foam mix covering her face (although he apparently never rolled her over to look at her face), and had reported coins, a bag, a jacket, her purse, her car keys, and car missing.
In other words, Johnson’s vison statements and other inconsistent remarks to family members appear to be part of a generalized pattern that started much earlier in the process. These multiple vision statements and general pattern of inconsistency were omitted from the 20/20 episode.
15. Does the prosecution’s theory require believing that Johnson randomly researched a complete stranger, hoping the stranger would happen to be a hitman, and got lucky?
No. To Johnson, Leonard wasn’t just any random stranger. He was the person to whom Andrea unexpectedly gave away the household computer–a computer that was meant to be recycled, not given to an individual for active use. Johnson admits that Andrea gave him Leonard’s number and asked him to call, and correctly recited the first three digits of Leonard’s number. Meanwhile, Leonard stated that the caller said (paraphrasing): “It looks like you’ve been in some trouble lately and been locked up a few times, and it gave me an idea” (emphasis added).
If Leonard is correct, then the caller didn’t research Leonard looking for a hitman. Rather, the caller got the idea to engage a hitman because he researched Leonard. The question then becomes: independent of the homicide, who had a motive to research Leonard?
In other words, Leonard’s testimony suggests that the caller researched him for some reason other than soliciting a murder-for-hire, and arrived at that idea only after finding Leonard’s criminal record. Leonard was the person who had Johnson’s computer. We have documented elsewhere that Johnson had illicit material that involved apparent misuse of Andrea’s beach house money on a computer, and how angry Andrea would likely have been had she discovered it.
Justice for Andrea Cincotta 